Jupiter Perps MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes what SMA is and its interpretation in trading, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what the output format looks like, potential rate limits, or authentication needs. The description adds some context about SMA characteristics but lacks operational details.

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 four concise sentences that each earn their place: defines SMA, explains interpretation, compares to EMA, and lists common periods. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good conceptual context about SMA but lacks operational completeness. It doesn't describe what the tool returns (just SMA values? with timestamps?), error conditions, or practical implementation details needed for an agent to use it effectively.

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 doesn't add meaning beyond what the input schema provides - it mentions common periods (20, 50, 100, 200) which is already in the schema's period parameter description. No additional parameter semantics are provided.

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 SMA (Simple Moving Average), which is a specific verb ('calculate') and resource ('trend indicator'). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning SMA specifically and contrasting it with EMA, which is a sibling tool (get_indicator_ema).

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 SMA is useful ('Price above SMA suggests uptrend, below suggests downtrend') and mentions 'Slower to react than EMA' which implicitly guides usage compared to the EMA sibling. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus other indicator siblings like RSI or MACD.

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