jupiter_createDCA

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

The description adds that it returns an unsigned transaction, which is a useful behavior hint. However, since no annotations are provided, it does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, or that the returned transaction must be signed and submitted. This is adequate but not highly informative.

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 (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core purpose and return type. No wasted words, making it easy for an AI to parse quickly.

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?

For a transaction-building tool with 10 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the return type but lacks supplementary context such as required wallet setup, token approvals, or post-creation steps. It is minimally sufficient but leaves gaps.

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% coverage with clear descriptions for each parameter. The tool description adds no additional meaning or formatting details beyond what the schema already provides. 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 identifies the tool's action ('Create'), resource ('Dollar-Cost Averaging (DCA) recurring order'), and return type ('unsigned transaction'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like jupiter_createLimitOrder or jupiter_smartSwap by focusing specifically on DCA orders.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions (e.g., not for one-time swaps), or scenarios where other tools like jupiter_executeDCA might be more appropriate.

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