Orca Swap

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description adds no additional behavioral insight. It does not disclose what happens during the swap, token balances, or potential risks, missing an opportunity to provide context beyond the structured fields.

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 has two short sentences and a longer paragraph about SAP integration. The first sentence is concise, but the second paragraph is tangentially related and increases length without directly aiding swap usage, making it less concise.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks essential context such as prerequisites (e.g., SOL for fees, token accounts), the nature of Whirlpool swaps (exact input/output), and the irreversible nature highlighted by destructiveHint=true. This gap reduces completeness for a complex DeFi operation.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds no further meaning or examples for 'slippageBps' or 'isExactInput,' relying entirely on 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 states 'Swap tokens on an Orca Whirlpool,' clearly identifying the verb (swap) and resource (Orca Whirlpool). However, it does not differentiate from other swap tools like jupiter_swap or magicblock_swap, which are listed as siblings, limiting its distinctiveness.

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 includes a lengthy paragraph about SAP MCP context, but this does not guide when to use this swap tool versus alternatives (e.g., jupiter_swap). It offers no criteria for selection, prerequisites, or situational advice.

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