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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states it reads on-chain Anchor accounts directly, revealing a read-only nature and data source, which is useful context. It stops short of explaining health flag semantics or data freshness, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 a single sentence packed with precise details—metrics, venue, assets, and data source—without any waste. It is well-structured and immediately informative.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool, the description fully enumerates the output fields and scope, making it self-contained even without an output schema. It tells the agent exactly what data to expect.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema already covers everything. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but none are needed; a baseline of 4 is appropriate for a parameter-less tool.

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 names specific metrics (OI, utilization, borrow APR, skew, OI caps, health flags) and explicitly scopes them to Jupiter Perps SOL/BTC/ETH, making the tool's purpose clear and distinct from siblings like perps_market_trend or perps_venue_comparison.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool—when a snapshot of Jupiter Perps market structure metrics is needed—but does not explicitly contrast it with alternative perps tools or state when not to use it.

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