Next token vesting/unlock event(s) (paid $0.003)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure. It specifies the payment requirement ($0.003, x402, USDC on Base), the read-only nature, the data source (DefiLlama public emissions), the 402 challenge flow, and the behavior for tokens without a public schedule. This is comprehensive and goes well beyond the schema.

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 concise (about 100 words), front-loaded with the critical payment flag, then states the core function, data content, disclaimers, and argument details. Every sentence carries useful information without redundancy, making it easy to parse and act on.

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?

The tool has no output schema, but the description enumerates the returned information (dates, amount, % supply, human description) and the no-public-schedule edge case. It also explains the payment protocol and argument behavior. This is complete for a read-only descriptive tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates what the schema already documents (token symbol/protocol/address, chain for address lookup, x_payment purpose). It adds no meaningful semantic information beyond the schema, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Next token vesting/unlock event(s)' with specifics about unlocking date, token amount, and % of max supply. It also distinguishes itself from siblings (ens_expiry, gas, oracle_health) by focusing on token unlocks and explicitly notes it is 'NOT a price signal.'

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 gives clear context on when to use it (when you need upcoming unlock events) and when not to (it is not a price signal). It also explains the argument formats and the payment flow, though it does not explicitly name alternatives among sibling tools.

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