Jupiter Perps (Solana): exact long/short OI, utilization, borrow rates, weekly top traders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so no safety contradiction exists. The description adds behavioral context by stating the data is 'read from the on-chain custody state' and emphasizing exactness, which is useful beyond the annotations. It does not discuss rate limits or failure modes, but the read-only annotation lowers the burden.

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 sentences with no filler: the first front-loads the trigger and the full data inventory, the second gives parameter guidance. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a multi-purpose data tool, the description covers all major output categories and the role of both parameters. There is no output schema, but the description compensates by listing return values explicitly. The only notable gap is what happens when parameters are omitted, since required parameters is 0.

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 100%: base's pattern and history_days' range are already documented. The description only restates 'Pass base and history_days' and clarifies that these drive the hourly OI history. That is marginally helpful but adds little 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 names the exact resource (Jupiter Perps on Solana) and enumerates the specific data provided: long/short OI, utilization, borrow rates, JLP metrics, 24h volume, and top traders. It also differentiates the tool from siblings by emphasizing the on-chain custody source and Jupiter-specific scope.

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 opens with an explicit trigger condition: 'Call this when the user asks about Jupiter perpetuals on Solana.' It gives clear context for when to use the tool, but does not name specific alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a perfect 5.

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