Jupiter Program Labels

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint: false, which contradicts the read-only nature of a 'get' tool. The description does not clarify this or add other behavioral details beyond what annotations already provide. The contradiction is noted but not severe as the tool is inherently safe.

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?

Two sentences: the first explains the tool's purpose, the second provides generic ecosystem context. The second sentence could be omitted or shortened, but the description is still efficient.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, output schema exists but not shown), the description fully explains what the tool returns. No gaps remain.

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 tool has no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter meaning because none exist, which is appropriate. Baseline of 4 applies per guidance.

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 'Get a mapping from program ID to human-readable label for all DEX programs', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling Jupiter tools that handle quotes, swaps, etc.

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 includes SAP MCP context and workflow guidance about using Jupiter tools for quote/route/swap preparation before transaction tools, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. The context is helpful but not tool-specific.

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