Jupiter Get Quote

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns 'full route plan details' and uses the 'Metis engine', providing some behavioral context beyond schema. No contradiction with 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 extremely concise: two sentences. The first delivers the core purpose immediately. The second adds essential workflow context (SAP MCP integration) without verbosity. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool's complexity (11 parameters, output schema exists), the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, workflow, and hints at output details. The output schema handles return value documentation, so no further detail is needed.

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 100%, so the input schema already fully describes all parameters. The description does not add additional semantics beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get an optimally-routed swap quote with full route plan details'. The verb 'Get' and resource 'swap quote' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like jupiter_swap (execution) and jupiter_getPrice (simple price) by mentioning 'full route plan' and the Metis engine.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use them for quote, route, and swap preparation, then use SAP transaction preview/sign/submit tools when an unsigned transaction must pass MCP signer policy.' This tells when to use this tool (for quoting) and when to switch to SAP tools for execution, clarifying the workflow.

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