vesting

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It explains the linear 6-month vesting schedule, shows that claiming requires a password (a side-effect hint), and differentiates between check (view-only) and claim (state-changing). It lacks explicit details about post-claim effects such as token transfer, but the behavior is adequately transparent for a tool of this complexity.

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

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

The description is efficiently structured with a clear opening statement, action-oriented bullets, and a one-sentence vesting schedule explanation. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no redundancy or filler.

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

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

Given the tool's moderate complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers its purpose, actions, parameter requirements, and underlying vesting model. It does not describe return values or error scenarios, but these are not critical for a straightforward check/claim tool with well-defined actions.

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

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

Although the input schema already documents all three parameters at 100% coverage, the description adds significant meaning by mapping each action to its required parameters (action=check uses tokenAddress, action=claim uses tokenAddress and password). This goes beyond the schema's generic field descriptions and clarifies usage logic.

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

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

The description opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Check and claim your vested tokens from coin launches.' It then enumerates two concrete actions (check and claim) and explains the vesting context, making it unmistakably distinct from sibling tools like 'launch' or 'wallet.'

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

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

The description clearly states when to use the tool: after launching a coin, to check vesting status or claim tokens. It also provides action-specific prerequisites (tokenAddress for check; tokenAddress and password for claim). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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