jito_sendBundle

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but omits key behaviors: bundle failure handling, confirmation process, fee implications, and interaction with Jito's block engine. It only states 'atomic transaction execution' without depth.

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?

Single sentence is concise and front-loaded with key action and purpose. However, given low behavioral transparency, it could include slightly more critical details without harming conciseness.

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?

No output schema and no annotations; description should cover return value (e.g., bundle ID) and execution guarantee. It currently lacks information on what the agent can expect after sending, making it incomplete.

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 coverage is 100% and fully describes parameters. The description adds overall purpose but does not elaborate on parameter semantics or constraints beyond the schema, providing marginal added value.

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 action ('Send') and resource ('Jito bundle') with a specific purpose ('MEV-protected, atomic transaction execution'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like jito_getBundleStatus and jito_getTipEstimate by focus on submission rather than status or estimation.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for sending bundles requiring atomicity, but lacks comparative context with other Jito tools or when not to use.

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