Jupiter Smart Swap

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description adds that it returns instructions for signing, but does not detail side effects, fees, or failure modes beyond what annotations suggest.

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 front-loaded and efficient, though could be slightly tighter; the SAP MCP context adds helpful but somewhat redundant guidance.

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 and presence of an output schema, the description covers the main workflow, inputs, and next steps (assembly/ signing), but omits error handling or prerequisite checks.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description only mentions a few parameters (input/output mints, amount, wallet) without adding new semantics beyond the schema.

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 defines it as a compound tool that fetches a quote and builds swap instructions in one call, distinguishing it from siblings like jupiter_swap and jupiter_swapInstructions by being the recommended entry-point.

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?

It states required inputs and how to use the output (assemble into a transaction), and provides SAP MCP context for workflow integration, but does not explicitly list when not to use this tool vs. alternatives like jupiter_getQuote.

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