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. It discloses the return format (OHLCV with timestamps) and a behavioral constraint ('minimum 3 candles required'), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or data freshness, which are important for a data retrieval tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return details and a key constraint, all in three concise sentences with zero wasted words, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 data retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and return format adequately but lacks completeness in areas like error handling, pagination, or example usage, which would help an agent use it correctly in complex scenarios.

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 adds value by specifying the data format (OHLCV with unix timestamps) and reinforcing the 'minimum 3 candles' constraint, which complements the schema's limit parameter (min 10, max 500), though it doesn't fully explain the discrepancy.

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 purpose with specific verbs ('retrieves historical OHLCV pricing data') and resources ('candle data'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on raw price data retrieval rather than indicators, positions, or snapshots.

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 implies usage for 'trend analysis and technical analysis,' which provides some context, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_market_snapshot or indicator tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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