Jupiter Swap

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description discloses that the tool returns an unsigned transaction (not submitting it), which matches the non-readOnly nature. It adds context about the signature workflow, though it could mention potential side effects like fee deduction or state changes.

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 concise (two sentences), front-loaded with the core action, and includes essential workflow context without redundancy. Every sentence adds value.

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's complexity (12 parameters, output schema) and the presence of sibling Jupiter tools, the description is complete: it defines the input (quote response), output (unsigned transaction), and downstream process (signing with SAP tools), enabling correct tool selection and invocation.

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 parameters are described in the schema. However, some parameter descriptions are vague (e.g., 'Use Token Ledger mint...'), and the tool description does not add clarification or group parameters meaningfully beyond what the schema provides.

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's primary function: building an unsigned swap transaction from a quote response. It specifies the resource (swap transaction) and the action (build), and distinguishes itself from siblings by placing it in a workflow with quote, route, and SAP signing tools.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool: after obtaining a quote via jupiter_getQuote, and it directs the agent to use SAP preview/sign/submit tools for signing, thus providing clear usage context and excluding alternatives.

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