jupiter_cancelDCA

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

Without annotations, the description must cover behavioral traits. It notes that the tool creates an 'unsigned transaction', implying no immediate execution, but fails to disclose important details like destructiveness (cancellation is irreversible), permission requirements (ownership), or side effects.

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 sentence with no waste. Every word contributes to the core purpose.

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?

Despite having 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It lacks context about DCA orders, the cancellation process, any constraints, or what the unsigned transaction contains. It does not address the return value.

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 75% (high), so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to any parameter. It merely restates what the schema already captures for 'user', 'order', and 'recurringType', and ignores 'computeUnitPrice'.

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 ('cancel') and the resource ('DCA recurring order'), and specifies the result ('Create an unsigned transaction'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like jupiter_cancelLimitOrder and jupiter_createDCA.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or comparisons with related tools such as jupiter_cancelLimitOrder.

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