jupiter_getLimitOrders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'get' implying read-only but does not explicitly declare no side effects, nor does it mention pagination (despite page/limit parameters) or rate limits. The absence of behavioral context leaves the agent uncertain about operation safety.

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, efficient sentence with no extraneous words. It front-loads the core purpose but omits important details. Slightly under-specified for the tool's complexity.

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 lack of output schema, the description should hint at the return format (e.g., list of order objects). It does not. Additionally, it does not explain the difference between 'active' and 'historical' orders or mention pagination behavior, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.

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 67%, and the description adds minimal meaning beyond what the schema provides. It clarifies that orderStatus can include 'active' and 'history', but does not detail the other parameters (page, limit, inputMint, outputMint). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries most of the parameter description.

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 action ('Get all limit orders'), the resource ('limit orders'), and the scope ('for a wallet'). It distinguishes from siblings like jupiter_createLimitOrder and jupiter_getOrder by specifying it retrieves multiple 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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as jupiter_getOrder for individual orders or jupiter_getDCAOrders. It does not mention prerequisites or filtering scenarios beyond the schema-defined parameters.

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