Jupiter Shield

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

The description implies a read-only operation ('check'), but annotations set readOnlyHint=false, creating a contradiction. Beyond that, no additional behavioral details (e.g., side effects, rate limits) are provided.

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 first sentence is concise and clear, but the second sentence about SAP MCP context is generic boilerplate that adds length without direct value for this tool. Slightly verbose.

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 simple single-parameter check tool, the description is minimally adequate. It does not mention output format, but since an output schema exists (as per context), that gap is mitigated. Still, overlapping sibling tools like spl-token_rugCheck are not addressed.

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 already describes the 'mints' parameter well. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, 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 checks token mints for security risks (honeypot, freeze authority, low liquidity). It specifies verb (check) and resource (token mints), making the purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from the similar sibling spl-token_rugCheck.

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 generic SAP MCP context about Jupiter tools but does not provide specific guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like spl-token_rugCheck, or conditions for use (e.g., pre-swap safety check). Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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