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 and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's a transaction submission (implies mutation/write), processes asynchronously with timing ('may take a few seconds'), and returns specific outputs (signature and message). It lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling, but covers core behavior adequately.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by behavioral details and usage note, all in three concise sentences with zero wasted words. Each sentence adds essential value without redundancy.

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 complexity (transaction submission with 4 required parameters) and no annotations or output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains the action, asynchronous behavior, verification method, and return values. It could improve by mentioning prerequisites (e.g., wallet setup) or error cases, but covers the essentials well for the context.

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 no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no extra context on asset selection or leverage implications), meeting the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Submits a transaction to open a new position or increase an existing one'), identifies the resource (position), and distinguishes from siblings like close_position (which closes) and estimate_open_position (which estimates without submitting).

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 it (to open/increase positions) and mentions using get_account_portfolio to verify after asynchronous processing. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., vs. estimate_open_position for simulation) or detail alternatives beyond verification.

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