Jupiter Perps MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only partially discloses behavioral traits. It explains what EMA is and how to interpret it, but doesn't mention computational characteristics, data sources, latency, error conditions, or rate limits. For a calculation tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 appropriately sized with three sentences that each add value: defines EMA, explains interpretation, and lists common periods. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. Could be slightly more concise by integrating the period information more efficiently.

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 4 parameters and 100% schema coverage but no output schema or annotations, the description is moderately complete. It explains what EMA is and how to interpret results, but doesn't describe the return format, calculation methodology, or error handling. The lack of output schema means the description should ideally explain what values are returned.

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%, providing good documentation for all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions common periods (9, 20, 50, 100, 200) which are already in the period parameter description, but doesn't provide additional semantic context about parameter interactions or calculation specifics.

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 EMA (Exponential Moving Average), specifying it's a trend indicator that reacts faster than SMA and explains its interpretation (price above/below EMA suggests uptrend/downtrend). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_indicator_sma by highlighting the faster reaction time and providing interpretation guidance.

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 by explaining how to interpret EMA values, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like SMA or other indicators. It mentions common periods which suggests typical use cases, but lacks explicit guidance on tool selection among siblings.

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