jupiter_getDCAOrders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits like pagination (despite page and limit params), required authentication, error handling, or response format. The description is too brief to inform the agent about side effects or constraints.

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, clear sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It is concise with no waste, though it could include more details (like pagination) without becoming overly long.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotation support, the description is incomplete. It does not address pagination behavior, default values, return structure, or differences between recurring types (time vs price). The tool's complexity demands more than a one-line summary.

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 description coverage is 75% (page and limit lack descriptions). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by clarifying that orderStatus filters active/history, but does not explain parameters like inputMint, outputMint, page, or limit. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents most 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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'DCA orders', specifying filtering by status (active/historical) and wallet. It distinguishes from sibling tools like jupiter_createDCA, jupiter_cancelDCA, and jupiter_getLimitOrders by focusing specifically on DCA 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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as jupiter_getOrder or jupiter_getLimitOrders. It implicitly indicates it's for DCA orders, but fails to state exclusions or context, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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