Jito Send Bundle

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only. The description adds 'atomic transaction execution' and 'MEV-protected', which are useful but does not disclose failure modes, tip mechanics, or response behavior beyond what the output schema may cover.

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 second sentence provides SAP ecosystem context, which may be valuable for the intended agent but is not directly about tool usage. No wasted words.

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 that the schema and annotations are well-populated, the description effectively communicates the core purpose and key behavioral traits. Missing details like default tip behavior are minor, but overall adequate for an AI agent to understand the tool's role.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning or examples for the parameters, so it does not exceed the baseline contribution.

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 verb 'Send' and the resource 'Jito bundle', specifying MEV protection and atomic execution. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'jito_getBundleStatus' and 'jito_getTipEstimate' which are retrieval tools.

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 includes a note about SAP tools but provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as prerequisites (e.g., signed transactions) or comparison with other bundle submission methods. The usage context is only implied.

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