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 and does well by explaining what the tool returns (suggested stop-loss levels at 1x, 2x, 3x ATR below current price) and providing practical context about higher ATR indicating higher volatility. It doesn't cover error conditions, rate limits, or authentication needs, but gives substantial behavioral insight.

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 perfectly concise with three sentences that each earn their place: first explains what ATR is and its purpose, second explains the volatility relationship, third describes the return values and common periods. No wasted words, front-loaded with core purpose.

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 calculation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining what the tool returns (stop-loss levels) and providing practical usage context. It could be more complete by specifying the exact format of the return values or error conditions, but covers the essential behavioral aspects given the context.

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 schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds some value by mentioning common periods for the 'period' parameter (10, 14, 20) and explaining the tool's purpose, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions.

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 'calculate' and resource 'ATR (Average True Range)', explaining it measures volatility for stop-loss placement and position sizing. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on ATR specifically, unlike other indicators like RSI or MACD.

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 for when to use this tool: for measuring volatility to inform stop-loss placement and position sizing. It mentions common periods (10, 14, 20) as guidance but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools.

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