jupiter_createLimitOrder

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states that the tool creates an unsigned transaction, not a signed or executed order. This is a key behavioral trait. It does not detail side effects or prerequisites, but for a creation tool, the mutation is implied.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and adds a critical usage note. Every sentence serves a 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?

Given the complexity (9 parameters fully described in schema, no output schema), the description adequately states the tool's return type (unsigned transaction) and next step (use executeTrigger). It could mention more about comparison to other trading tools, but it is sufficient for an AI agent to understand the basic flow.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, which is adequate. The mention of 'unsigned transaction' pertains to output, not parameters.

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: 'Create a limit order.' This is a specific verb+resource pair that distinguishes it from sibling tools like jupiter_createDCA or jupiter_swap. No confusion about what the tool does.

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 that the tool returns an unsigned transaction to be signed and submitted via executeTrigger, which provides a usage hint. However, it does not explicitly state when to use a limit order versus other order types or swaps, leaving the agent to infer context.

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