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 for behavioral disclosure. It explains what the indicator measures and how to interpret results, but doesn't mention computational characteristics like whether it requires historical data, potential rate limits, or error conditions. The description adds value about the indicator's purpose but lacks 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 perfectly structured and concise - every sentence earns its place. It starts with the core purpose, explains what it returns, provides interpretation guidelines, and ends with practical configuration advice. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 indicator is, what it returns, how to interpret results, and common configurations. However, it doesn't describe the return format or structure, which would be helpful since there's no output schema to reference.

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 meaningful context by explaining common settings ('Common settings: (14,3) standard, (5,3) fast, (21,7) slow') which helps the agent choose appropriate values, though it doesn't add syntax details beyond what the schema provides.

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's purpose: 'Calculate Stochastic Oscillator - a momentum indicator comparing closing price to price range. Returns %K and %D lines.' It specifies the verb ('calculate'), resource ('Stochastic Oscillator'), and output ('%K and %D lines'), distinguishing it from sibling indicator tools 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 by explaining interpretation guidelines ('Values above 80 indicate overbought, below 20 indicate oversold. %K crossing above %D is bullish signal') and common settings. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over alternative indicators like RSI or MACD from the sibling list.

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