Jupiter Get D C A Orders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. Description adds no new behavioral insights beyond stating the query nature. No contradiction, but also no added value.

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 with the first directly stating the tool's purpose. The second sentence provides ecosystem context that may be helpful but is not specific to this tool. Overall concise and well-structured.

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 presence of an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description is sufficient for understanding the tool's core function. However, it does not differentiate from similar query tools in the sibling list, which could be improved.

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?

All 8 parameters have descriptions in the schema, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not provide any additional semantic clarification beyond what the schema already states, so it meets the baseline but adds nothing extra.

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 tool retrieves DCA orders for a wallet, specifying active and optionally historical. This action is distinct from sibling Jupiter tools like jupiter_cancelDCA or jupiter_createDCA.

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 includes context about SAP MCP and Jupiter tools as AgentKit ecosystem, but does not explicitly tell the agent when to use getDCAOrders versus other query tools like jupiter_getLimitOrders or jupiter_getOrder. It implies read-only use but lacks direct alternatives comparison.

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