jupiter_programLabels

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only states a safe read operation. It does not disclose potential behaviors like rate limits, dependencies, or if the mapping is cached or live. The simplicity of the tool mitigates the need for more detail, but it stops at the minimum viable.

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?

One sentence, 19 words, no wasted text. Front-loaded with the action verb 'Get', making it immediately scannable.

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?

For a no-parameter lookup tool without output schema, the description covers the purpose and scope. However, it could mention the output format (e.g., JSON object) or provide an example to enhance completeness.

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 input schema is empty, so the description adds full meaning by explaining what the tool returns. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description provides sufficient context.

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 returns a mapping from program ID to human-readable label for all DEX programs in the routing engine. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like jupiter_swap or jupiter_getQuote.

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 implies usage when needing to resolve program IDs to labels but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It lacks context for selective invocation among sibling tools.

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