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 adequately describes what the tool returns (MACD line, signal line, histogram) and the significance of histogram crossings, but doesn't mention computational characteristics (e.g., performance, rate limits), error conditions, or data freshness. The description doesn't contradict any annotations since none exist.

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 in three sentences: purpose statement, return values with interpretation, and practical parameter guidance. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words, and the most important information (what MACD is and what it returns) comes 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 calculation tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description provides good context about returns and parameter usage. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more detail about the return format (e.g., data structure, units) and any limitations. The description compensates well for the lack of output schema by explaining 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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds value by providing common parameter settings (12,26,9 for standard, 5,13,5 for fast/scalping, 19,39,9 for slow/swing) which gives practical guidance beyond the schema's technical ranges. However, it doesn't explain the relationship between parameters or provide additional syntax details.

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 MACD (Moving Average Convergence Divergence) and identifies its purpose as analyzing trend direction and momentum. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_indicator_rsi or get_indicator_sma by specifying the MACD indicator specifically, and mentions the three return components (MACD line, signal line, histogram).

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 MACD is used (identifying trend direction and momentum, with histogram crossing zero indicating trend changes) and offers common parameter settings for different trading strategies (standard, fast/scalping, slow/swing). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus other indicator tools like RSI or Bollinger Bands, 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.