jupiter-swap

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral details, but it only states the high-level action. It does not mention transaction signing, execution mechanics, fees, or slippage implications beyond what the schema already shows. This leaves the agent without important context for a state-changing swap operation.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every word contributes to stating the core purpose, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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?

This is a 4-parameter state-changing tool with no output schema and no annotations, yet the description only covers the basic action. It omits crucial context such as what the tool returns, whether the swap is simulated or executed, and how slippage or amount units are handled, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly without external knowledge.

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 input schema already fully documents amount, input_mint, output_mint, and slippage_bps. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the baseline of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Swap') and clearly identifies the resource and scope ('tokens on Solana using Jupiter'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like buy-token and launch-token by indicating a generic exchange operation rather than token creation or purchase.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as buy-token or token-lookup. There are no stated exclusions, prerequisites, or context clues to help the agent choose correctly.

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