Jupiter Perps MCP Server

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 effectively describes key behavioral traits: the asynchronous processing nature ('may take a few seconds'), the verification method needed, what gets returned ('transaction signature and confirmation message'), and what happens to collateral ('returned as USDC'). This covers important operational aspects beyond basic functionality.

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 three sentences that each serve distinct purposes: stating the core action, explaining processing behavior and verification, and describing return values and collateral outcome. There's no wasted text, and important information is front-loaded.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the asynchronous nature, verification requirements, return values, and collateral handling. However, it could be more complete by mentioning potential errors, rate limits, or authentication requirements that might be relevant for this financial transaction 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents both parameters (asset and side) with their enums and descriptions. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 specific action ('fully close an existing position at market price') and resource ('position'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'open_position' (which creates positions) and 'get_account_portfolio' (which reads positions). It goes beyond just restating the name by specifying the execution method and outcome.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool ('to fully close an existing position') and explicitly references an alternative tool for verification ('use get_account_portfolio to verify closure'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or compare it to all possible alternatives among siblings.

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