Jupiter Execute Trigger

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

Annotations already indicate destructive=true, so the description's mention of 'on-chain execution' aligns but adds minimal behavioral detail (e.g., no side effects or failure modes). The description does not contradict 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 concise sentences: the first clearly states the primary purpose, the second adds important context. No unnecessary words.

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?

The description covers the tool's role within the larger Jupiter/SAP ecosystem and mentions the output schema exists. It could briefly mention prerequisites (e.g., having a signed transaction) but is otherwise sufficient.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already specifies.

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 tool's action ('Submit a signed limit-order transaction for on-chain execution') and distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with creating or canceling 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?

The description provides context on the Jupiter protocol workflow and SAP MCP signer policy, but it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from other Jupiter execute tools (e.g., jupiter_executeOrder, jupiter_executeDCA) regarding when to use each.

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