Jito Send Bundle

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, etc. The description adds no further behavioral details such as success/failure outcomes, fees, or the need to check status via jito_getBundleStatus. Without this, an agent may not understand potential side effects or the non-deterministic nature of bundle inclusion.

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 concise with two sentences. The first sentence delivers the core purpose. The second sentence provides SAP context, which may be useful for agents integrating with the SAP ecosystem but is not essential for basic usage. No fluff, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with 2 parameters and full schema coverage, so the description is mostly adequate. However, missing behavioral context (e.g., non-guaranteed inclusion, tip role) and no mention of output (though output schema exists) leave gaps in understanding. For a tool of this complexity, it is minimally complete but could be improved.

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 100% description coverage, clearly defining 'transactions' as an array of base64-encoded signed transactions (max 5) and 'tipLamports' as a raw token amount. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Send a Jito bundle for MEV-protected, atomic transaction execution.' This specifies the action (send), resource (Jito bundle), and intent (MEV protection and atomicity). The title and description distinguish it from sibling tools like jito_getBundleStatus, which retrieves bundle status. The description effectively communicates its unique role.

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 sending bundles requiring MEV protection and atomic execution. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives, but given there are no direct siblings for sending bundles, the implied context is sufficient. The SAP context note provides ecosystem guidance but is secondary.

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