Jupiter Get Holdings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. Description adds 'including USD valuations' and SAP context, which are helpful but not critical behavioral details beyond 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?

The description is two sentences, efficient and front-loaded with purpose. Second sentence is somewhat tangential but not harmful; loses a point for minor extraneous context.

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?

With an output schema present, the description adequately covers purpose and includes USD valuations. Could mention that it queries Solana token accounts, but overall 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?

Schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters. Description repeats the schema's intent but does not add new meaning or usage details beyond what the schema provides.

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 fetches token balances and holdings for specific accounts, including USD valuations. This distinguishes it from sibling Jupiter tools like jupiter_getQuote or jupiter_getPrice.

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 about being part of a larger workflow (quote/route/swap with SAP tools) but does not give explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other Jupiter read tools like jupiter_getTokenInfo.

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