Jupiter Get Token List

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint true, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it returns token metadata, organic score, price, and audit info, providing extra behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradiction (annotation_contradiction false).

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: the first effectively states the function, the second provides SAP ecosystem context. While not verbose, the SAP context is extraneous for this specific tool and could be placed in a general note. The important line is front-loaded.

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 low complexity (one optional enum parameter, output schema exists), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, return fields, and ecosystem context. Schema and annotations cover the rest. No major gaps for an agent to use it correctly.

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 100% with explicit descriptions for the single parameter (query enum). The description adds no new information about the parameter meaning, only about the output. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents parameters adequately.

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 verb 'Get', resource 'Jupiter tokens', and filter by tag ('verified' or 'lst'). It lists return fields (metadata, organic score, price, audit info), distinguishing it from siblings like jupiter_getTokenInfo (single token) and jupiter_searchTokens (search).

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 mentions using Jupiter tools for quote/route/swap preparation and then SAP transaction tools, which provides general context but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings. Implied usage is for obtaining token lists before swaps, but no exclusions or comparisons are given.

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