Jupiter Get Token Info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds return types but no new behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, auth needs). It adds marginal value beyond the 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 concise with a clear first sentence. The second paragraph adds ecosystem context, which is useful but slightly tangential. Front-loaded and no unnecessary repetition.

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 full schema coverage, output schema present, and comprehensive annotations, the description is adequate for a simple query tool. It covers search capabilities and return fields, though it could elaborate on terms like 'organic score'.

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?

The parameter 'query' has full schema description coverage (100%). The overall description repeats the schema's explanation but adds no new semantics or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 searches for token information by mint address, symbol, or name, and lists what it returns (metadata, price, organic score, audit info). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like jupiter_searchTokens or jupiter_getTokenList, relying on implicit differences in returned fields.

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 ecosystem context (Jupiter tools for preparation, SAP for signing) but gives no specific guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like getPrice or searchTokens. Context is present but lacks explicit when/when-not usage.

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