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, so safety is covered; the description adds genuine context by stating the OI figures come from on-chain custody state, which tells the agent the data is authoritative/derived rather than estimated. It does not mention freshness/latency, rate limits, or the shape of the response, so with annotations doing the heavy lifting a 3 is right.

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, zero padding, and the trigger condition is front-loaded before the enumeration of returned data. Every clause earns its place by mapping to a distinct piece of output the agent can expect.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and the enumerated fields (OI, utilization, borrow rates, AUM/APR, volume, top traders) do that well. What is missing is any guidance on when history_days should be omitted versus set, though with both parameters optional that is a minor gap.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's final sentence ('Pass base and history_days for the hourly OI history') adds a small amount by implying the two interact — history_days yields hourly OI history for the chosen base — but it repeats rather than enriches the schema text.

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?

States a specific verb-by-implication ('call this when the user asks about') plus a precise resource: Jupiter perpetuals on Solana, with an enumerated list of the data it returns (long/short OI, utilization, borrow rates, JLP AUM/APR, volume, top traders). Naming Jupiter distinguishes it in substance from the generic siblings get_solana_perps and get_open_interest, but it never explicitly says how it differs from them, leaving some overlap for the agent to resolve.

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?

Gives a clear invocation trigger ('when the user asks about Jupiter perpetuals on Solana') tied to named user intents. There are no exclusions or explicit alternatives ('use get_solana_perps instead when...'), which keeps it below a 5 given the crowded sibling set of perps/OI tools.

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