jupiter_swap

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states the tool builds an unsigned transaction (no direct state mutation) and advises signing/sending externally, but it does not disclose whether the transaction has side effects, what permissions are needed, or any failure modes. The behavioral disclosure is minimal.

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 a single sentence containing only essential information: the action (build), the resource (unsigned swap transaction), the input requirement (from quote response), and the next step (sign and send). No extraneous text.

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 tool has 12 parameters, 50% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return format, parameter roles, or error handling. The complexity demands more context.

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 only 50%, yet the description adds no explanation for any of the 12 parameters. Parameters like feeAccount, useTokenLedger, dynamicSlippage, etc., are left undocumented in the description, forcing reliance on the partial schema descriptions. The description adds no value 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 states it builds an unsigned swap transaction from a quote response, with a specific verb 'build' and identifiable resource. It distinguishes from siblings like jupiter_getQuote (which provides the quote) and jupiter_smartSwap (which likely executes the swap directly).

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 a prerequisite ('from a quote response'), guiding the agent to first obtain a quote via getQuote. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool vs alternatives like jupiter_smartSwap or jupiter_swapInstructions, nor does it state when not to use it.

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