Skip to main content
Glama

get_token_dump_risk

Evaluate token unlock and vesting supply overhang risk before taking positions, with unlock date, supply ratio, and sell-pressure score vs. real-time volume.

Instructions

Calculate a token's vesting/unlock D-Day, unlock ratio relative to
circulating supply, and a sell-pressure score against real-time volume,
returned as a concise summary report.

Use this to evaluate token unlock/vesting supply overhang risk before
taking mid-to-long term positions. Default data source (on-chain Sablier
vesting, the current configuration - no DropsTab key set) does NOT classify
VC/team vs. other holders and does NOT provide exact unlock timing
(days_until_unlock stays null) - it only reports the currently-locked
supply ratio; treat a null value as "unknown," never as "no risk." On this
on-chain path it also reports vesting_deposit_amount/vesting_withdrawn_amount
(Sablier's own depositAmount/withdrawnAmount, aggregated across streams) and
vesting_progress_pct (withdrawn/deposit * 100) showing how far along the
vesting schedule already is - null when deposit data wasn't available. Do
NOT use it for intra-day slippage or real-time transaction simulation - use
dex.liquidity_slippage for that instead. This tool is free (no payment) as
an onboarding check; every other tool here is a normal read-only call
against app/logic.py.

Args:
    symbol: Token ticker symbol (e.g. "ATH", "AO", "CPOOL"). Case-insensitive.

Returns:
    Success & data available: {"success": true, "available": true, "symbol",
        "unlock_date_utc", "days_until_unlock", "unlock_supply_pct",
        "vesting_progress_pct", "volume_impact_pct", "sell_pressure_risk_level", ...}
    Success but not yet available:
        {"success": true, "available": false, "reason", "message"}
        (e.g. the paid data source isn't connected yet, by business decision)
    Failure: {"success": false, "error": {"type", "message"}}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
symbolYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It comprehensively discloses that the default on-chain Sablier source does not classify holders, does not provide exact unlock timing (days_until_unlock stays null), and explains the interpretation of null as 'unknown' not 'no risk'. It also details additional fields (vesting_deposit_amount, vesting_withdrawn_amount, vesting_progress_pct) and their null behavior, as well as the free/read-only nature. This far exceeds typical behavioral transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but every sentence earns its place. It is front-loaded with the purpose, then logically structured into usage guidance, caveats, args, and returns. Despite its length, there is no redundancy; all details are necessary given the lack of annotations and output schema. The structure aids scanning, and the critical caveats are clearly highlighted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple return shapes, data source limitations, null handling) and the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers success with data, success but unavailable, and failure cases, explains edge cases (null days_until_unlock, vesting_progress_pct null), and provides enough context for an agent to correctly interpret results. Nothing essential is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so effectively with a dedicated Args section: 'symbol: Token ticker symbol (e.g. "ATH", "AO", "CPOOL"). Case-insensitive.' This adds meaning beyond the raw schema (type: string) by providing examples and case-insensitivity, fully covering the only parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's specific function: calculating vesting/unlock D-Day, unlock ratio, and sell-pressure score against volume. It uses precise verbs and resources, and explicitly differentiates from siblings by referencing dex.liquidity_slippage as the alternative for intra-day slippage, making its unique purpose unmistakable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly states when to use the tool (evaluating token unlock/vesting supply overhang risk before mid-to-long term positions) and when not to use it (not for intra-day slippage or real-time simulation), pointing to the specific alternative tool. It also clarifies the default data source limitations and the meaning of null values, leaving no ambiguity about appropriate contexts.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.