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 describes the data returned but does not address critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. For a financial data tool, this omission is significant.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and efficiently lists all returned data points. Every element (balance, equity, positions with detailed fields) earns its place without redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity (financial portfolio data) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is moderately complete. It thoroughly explains the return values but misses behavioral context like safety or performance traits. This is adequate for a read operation but leaves gaps in operational guidance.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on output semantics, detailing the returned data structure (e.g., positions with fields like asset, side, equity). This adds value beyond the schema, though a baseline of 4 is set for zero-parameter tools.

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 verb ('retrieves') and resource ('wallet's current USDC balance, total equity, and all open positions'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_candles (market data) or get_market_snapshot (market overview). It precisely defines what data is returned, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_market_snapshot or other indicator tools. It lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the purpose alone.

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