Jupiter Swap Instructions

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

The description does not contradict annotations. It adds context about composing and SAP integration. While it doesn't elaborate on side effects, the destructiveHint is implied by 'swap instructions'. No annotation contradiction.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose. No wasted words.

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?

The description mentions composition and SAP MCP workflow. While it doesn't explicitly state the dependency on jupiter_getQuote, the schema's parameter description for quoteResponse covers that. Given the output schema exists and parameters are well-documented, it is sufficiently complete.

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 all parameters are described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'individual swap instructions', distinguishing it from a full transaction. It also implicitly separates from siblings like jupiter_swap by focusing on instruction composition.

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 says 'Useful for composing with other instructions' and provides SAP MCP context with guidance on when to use this tool versus SAP transaction tools for signing. This gives clear decision support.

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