jupiter_executeTrigger

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It correctly indicates a write operation that submits a transaction, but omits details like failure modes, permission requirements, or whether it is idempotent. The addition of 'on-chain execution' clarifies the domain but adds limited depth.

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 a single sentence of 9 words, maximizing conciseness while conveying the essential purpose. No superfluous information.

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 is too minimal given the context. It does not mention the dependency on jupiter_createLimitOrder (requestId origin), nor does it indicate what happens upon execution (e.g., transaction ID or success confirmation). An output schema is absent, so the description should compensate for this gap.

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 both parameters well-described (requestId from createLimitOrder response, signedTransaction as base64). The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a 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 states the verb 'submit', the resource 'signed limit-order transaction', and the action 'for on-chain execution'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like jupiter_createLimitOrder and jupiter_executeOrder by specifying the limit-order type.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites such as needing to create a limit order first via jupiter_createLimitOrder, nor does it explain when to use jupiter_executeOrder instead.

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