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 clearly describes what the tool returns (three bands) and offers interpretation guidance (price touching bands suggests conditions). However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like whether this requires real-time data access, potential rate limits, error conditions, or how historical data is sourced. The description adds value but leaves gaps in operational transparency.

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 zero wasted words. The first sentence states purpose and returns, the second provides interpretation guidance, and the third offers practical parameter settings. Every sentence earns its place, and information is appropriately front-loaded with the core functionality stated first.

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 technical indicator calculation tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about what's calculated and how to interpret results. However, without annotations and with no output schema, it should ideally describe the return format more explicitly (e.g., data structure, timestamps, calculation methodology). The common settings guidance helps but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of output documentation.

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 minimal parameter semantics by mentioning common settings (20,2 standard; 20,1.5 tight; 20,2.5 wide) which partially overlaps with schema descriptions. It doesn't add significant meaning beyond what's already in the well-documented schema.

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 calculates Bollinger Bands, specifies what it returns (upper band, middle SMA, lower band), and explains its purpose for measuring volatility and identifying overbought/oversold conditions. It distinguishes from siblings like get_indicator_rsi or get_indicator_macd by focusing specifically on Bollinger Bands analysis.

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 about when Bollinger Bands are useful (measuring volatility, identifying overbought/oversold conditions) and offers common parameter settings guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternative indicators like RSI or MACD from the sibling list, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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