jupiter_smartSwap

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that the returned instructions can be assembled into a transaction and signed, but it does not disclose important behavioral traits such as whether the tool mutates state, authorization requirements, or any side effects. For a tool with 17 parameters, this is insufficient.

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 long, front-loads the purpose, and provides key information concisely. Every sentence adds value without waste.

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 complexity (17 parameters) and lack of output schema, the description covers the basic return types but omits important context such as error handling, fee usage guidance, or behavior of optional parameters. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description. The tool description adds context about the output (quote, instructions, summary) but does not significantly enhance parameter semantics beyond the schema. 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 it is an all-in-one compound tool that fetches a quote and builds swap instructions. It uses a specific verb ('fetches' and 'builds') and identifies the resource (swap). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'jupiter_swap' tool, so it loses the top score.

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 recommends it as the entry-point for AI agents preparing a swap, providing some guidance on when to use it. But it does not specify when NOT to use it (e.g., if a quote is already available) or mention alternatives like 'jupiter_swapInstructions'.

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