Jupiter Execute D C A

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint: true, and description does not add significant behavioral context beyond 'submit a signed transaction'. No mention of side effects, success/failure outcomes, or non-idempotence (idempotentHint: false), so description adds minimal value over annotations.

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?

Two sentences efficiently convey the core purpose and ecosystem context. The second sentence, while providing useful workflow context, could be considered slightly extraneous for a single tool description, but overall it is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

Description covers the tool's role in the DCA workflow and mentions the broader Jupiter/SAP tool ecosystem. However, it does not explicitly state that a DCA order must first be created via jupiter_createDCA to obtain a requestId, nor does it explain the signing step. Output schema exists but was not provided; description still has some 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters ('Request ID from createDCA response' and 'Base64-encoded signed transaction'). Description adds no additional parameter meaning, so 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?

Description clearly states the verb (submit) and resource (signed DCA transaction). It distinguishes from sibling tools like jupiter_createDCA (which creates the order) and jupiter_cancelDCA by specifying it handles the submission of signed transactions for both creation and cancellation.

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?

Description provides ecosystem context about using Jupiter tools for preparation and SAP tools for unsigned transactions. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other Jupiter execution tools (e.g., jupiter_executeOrder) or state prerequisites like needing a requestId from jupiter_createDCA.

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