Jupiter Search Tokens

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, signaling safe read behavior. The description adds that it returns matching tokens with metadata, which is consistent but does not extend beyond what annotations convey.

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, front-loaded with the clear purpose and followed by ecosystem context. No unnecessary words, but the second sentence could be considered tangential for a search tool definition.

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 output schema exists and the description explains what returns, the tool is adequately documented. It misses potential edge cases like handling of query format or empty results, but for a simple search tool with one parameter this is acceptable.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the parameter description identical to the tool description's mention ('Search by token symbol, name, or mint address'). The description adds no new semantic information beyond the schema, so the baseline is 3 but with no added value it falls to 2.

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 verb 'Search for tokens' and the resource 'tokens by symbol, name, or mint address'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like jupiter_getTokenInfo and jupiter_getTokenList by focusing on search rather than exact lookup or full list retrieval.

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 about using Jupiter tools for quote/route preparation before SAP transaction tools, but does not explicitly guide when to use searchTokens versus alternatives like getTokenInfo or getTokenList. The guidance is more about workflow integration than comparative usage.

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