jupiter_swapInstructions

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

No annotations are provided. The description indicates that the tool returns instructions without executing a transaction, which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose any permissions, side effects, or limitations beyond that.

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 consists of two concise sentences, with the main purpose front-loaded. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no redundant information.

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 10 parameters, a nested object input, and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain the format of the returned instructions, how to integrate them, or any prerequisites. This leaves significant gaps for correct usage.

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 description coverage is only 40% (4 out of 10 parameters have descriptions). The description adds no information about any parameters. It does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions, leaving many parameters undocumented.

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 'Get individual swap instructions instead of a full transaction', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'jupiter_swap' which performs a full swap, and implies composition use.

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 says 'Useful for composing with other instructions', which gives explicit context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, though the sibling list provides contrast.

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