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 effectively describes the tool's behavior by detailing the returned data structure (timestamp, market data, statistics, fees, borrow rates, utilization, liquidity) and explains key operational nuances like shared USDC pool for short positions versus asset-specific tokens for long positions. However, it does not mention potential rate limits, error conditions, or data freshness guarantees.

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 two sentences: the first states the purpose and lists returned data, the second explains critical behavioral nuances about liquidity pools. Every sentence adds essential information with zero waste, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 the tool's complexity (retrieving multi-asset market data) and lack of output schema, the description provides substantial context about return values, data fields, and operational details. It covers the core functionality well but could be more complete by addressing potential limitations, update frequency, or error handling to fully compensate for the absence of annotations and output schema.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on output semantics, explaining what data is returned without redundant parameter details. It adds value by clarifying the structure and meaning of the returned market data beyond what a minimal schema would provide.

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 with a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('current market state for all trading assets'), listing the exact assets (SOL, ETH, BTC). It distinguishes from siblings like get_candles or get_account_portfolio by focusing on comprehensive market-wide data rather than historical charts or account-specific information.

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 obtaining real-time market metrics, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_candles for historical data or get_account_portfolio for user-specific holdings. It provides some context about the data scope but lacks explicit guidance on use cases or exclusions.

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