Token Unlock Intelligence MCP server — comprehensive token unlock and supply risk analysis engine. Includes scheduled unlock analysis, liquidity absorption modeling, and composite risk scoring for Ethereum, Arbitrum, BSC, and Base chains.
Two tools registered via MCP SDK with moderate quality. Both have adequate descriptions (>100 chars) explaining use cases and supported chains. Input schemas are present with type definitions and examples. However, several quality gaps limit the score: (1) parameter descriptions lack constraint details (range, regex, character limits); (2) no explicit output schema documentation visible in the tool definitions; (3) missing error handling guidance and recovery instructions; (4) no tool annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint) despite both tools being read-only; (5) parameter relationships and dependencies not documented. The tool names follow verb_noun convention (analyze_, scan_) which is good, but parameter validation appears to occur at runtime without exposure in the schema. Both tools are READ_ONLY, but this is not declared in the schema using tool annotations.
Comprehensive token unlock and supply risk engine. Includes scheduled unlock analysis, liquidity absorption modeling, and composite risk scoring. Use this tool for TITN-type queries, unlock event assessment, market impact analysis, severity classification, and risk tier. Supports Ethereum, Arbitrum, BSC, Base. Provide token_symbol for registry/calendar analysis, or token_address + chain for full on-chain analysis. This tool supersedes legacy unlock-only endpoints. Try asking: Analyze the upcoming unlock risk for HYPE; When is the next ENA token unlock?; Show upcoming unlock events for ARB; Analyze Jupiter (JUP) token unlock schedule; Which tokens have large unlocks in the next 30 days?; Analyze TIA and SUI token supply unlock risk.
High-impact upcoming unlock scanner: lists all tokens with scheduled unlocks in the next N days, sorted by impact severity. Use for early-warning unlock event discovery and bulk risk assessment across registry tokens. Returns token symbol, unlock timestamp, event severity, absorption risk label, and composite risk score. Supports optional market filtering (by exchange, by country, by trading pairs). Try asking: Show all upcoming unlocks in the next 7 days; Which tokens have high-impact unlocks next month?; List critical and high-severity unlocks scheduled for the next 14 days.
No explicit output schema documentation. Tool definitions show input schemas but no visible documented output field structure. LLMs cannot plan downstream operations or extract required fields without knowing the response shape.
Missing tool annotations for read-only operations. Both tools are marked Risk: READ_ONLY but lack explicit readOnlyHint in schema. Current spec (2026-07-28) encourages tool annotations to clarify side effects and retryability for agent reasoning.
Parameter descriptions lack constraint details. 'timeframe_days' defaults to 30 but no min/max documented. 'min_severity' is an enum but constraint rationale not explained. 'limit' defaults to 50 but max bound unclear. LLMs need explicit ranges to avoid invalid values.
Inferred effective spec: 2025-06-18+.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-22 | C | 64 | 2025-06-18+ | v2 |
| 2026-03-09 | D | 51 | - | v1 |
No error handling or recovery guidance documented. Tool descriptions do not explain what errors might occur (invalid chain, token not found, RPC timeout) or what the agent should do next. Error responses will be opaque to the LLM.
Parameter dependency not documented. 'analyze_token_supply_risk' accepts either (token_symbol alone) OR (token_address + chain). Schema shows 'required: []' (nothing required), but usage rules are unclear. LLMs will pass both parameters simultaneously, causing ambiguity.
'simulation_params' object lacks internal field documentation. Type is 'object' but no description of valid keys (price_shock_pct, volume_shock_pct, unlock_multiplier) or their ranges provided in the schema. LLMs cannot construct valid objects without explicit field documentation.