Jupiter Cancel Limit Orders

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. The description adds that the tool 'creates unsigned transactions', which is a key behavioral trait. It also implies batch operation. This adds value beyond annotations by clarifying the output is not directly executed.

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 two sentences long, with the first sentence being direct and the second providing context. While not overly verbose, the second sentence is somewhat extraneous and could be trimmed for better 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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers the basic purpose and the unsigned transaction nature. However, it lacks details about prerequisites (e.g., owning the orders), error conditions, or output structure beyond what the schema provides. It is minimally complete.

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 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or usage hints for the parameters, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 'cancel' and the resource 'multiple limit orders in batch', distinguishing it from siblings like jupiter_createLimitOrder or jupiter_cancelDCA. The core action is unambiguous.

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 mentions SAP MCP context and the need to use transaction submission tools afterward, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to other cancellation tools like manifest_cancelOrder or openbook_cancelOrder. The context is helpful but insufficient for selection.

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