Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• jupiter_get_positionsA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the tool returns a broad set of position types, which is useful, but it doesn't disclose behaviors like default filtering, pagination, rate limits, or how errors are handled. The phrase 'and more' adds ambiguity.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists specific examples. Every word contributes value, with no redundant filler.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's complexity (aggregating multiple DeFi position types) and lack of output schema, the description provides a good overview but leaves gaps: no return format, no usage conditions, and no differentiation from siblings. It is adequate but not fully complete.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description adds no extra semantics beyond what is in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('portfolio positions'), and enumerates the types of positions covered (wallet balances, staked positions, liquidity pools, etc.). This differentiates it from siblings like jupiter_get_staked_jup which is narrower in scope.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that jupiter_get_staked_jup should be used if only staked JUP positions are needed. The description only states what the tool does, not the context or exclusions.

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

• jupiter_get_platformsA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention return format, pagination, rate limits, or any other behavioral details. As a read-only list operation, the behavior is fairly straightforward, but the description fails to provide any additional context beyond the action itself.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to scan. This is exemplary conciseness.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's simplicity (no input schema, no output schema), the description is essentially complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns. However, it does not note that the returned platform list might be used as inputs to other Jupiter tools, which could be a useful contextual hint, but it is not essential for using the tool correctly.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter details. It correctly focuses on the output rather than input.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's function: retrieving a list of all DeFi platforms integrated with Jupiter's portfolio tracking system. It uses a specific verb ('Get a list') and a specific resource ('DeFi platforms'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like jupiter_get_positions, jupiter_get_staked_jup, and jupiter_get_price.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies the tool should be used when the agent needs to know which DeFi platforms are supported, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or prerequisites, but the simple nature of the tool makes the implied usage acceptable.

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

• jupiter_get_priceA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses the key return fields (USD price, 24h price change, token decimals) but does not mention potential behaviors like data freshness, caching, rate limits, or error cases. This is a moderate level of transparency for a simple read-only price tool.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, target, and key outputs without any filler or redundant detail. Every word contributes to understanding the tool.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a simple read-only price lookup with no output schema, the description provides enough information about the tool's purpose and outputs to set expectations. It does not discuss error behavior or integration context, but the simplicity of the tool and the explicit output fields make the description reasonably complete.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema fully documents the only parameter 'ids' with a clear description and example, giving 100% schema coverage. The description does not add extra parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description uses the specific verb "Get" with a clear resource: "current prices for one or more tokens on Jupiter." It also enumerates included outputs (USD price, 24h change, token decimals), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that cover positions, staked JUP, and platforms.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies it is the tool for checking token prices by naming the resource and outputs, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus siblings or provide any exclusions. Since the siblings address clearly different domains, the usage context is fairly evident.

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

• jupiter_get_staked_jupA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly signals a read-only operation via the verb 'Get' and describes the return content (amount staked and unstaking positions). While it does not discuss rate limits or errors, the simple getter behavior is adequately disclosed for its purpose.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, with no superfluous words. It efficiently conveys the tool's scope and output highlights.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is largely complete. It states the purpose and the main return fields. Minor gaps like return format or error conditions are acceptable for such a straightforward getter.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the schema's 'Solana wallet address' phrasing and adds no additional meaning, such as format or constraints. It otherwise does not compensate beyond the schema.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the verb (Get), the resource (staked JUP tokens information), and the scope (for a Solana wallet address). It also lists specific content (amount staked and unstaking positions), which distinctly separates it from sibling tools like get_positions, get_platforms, and get_price.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies when to use the tool by explicitly naming the target resource (staked JUP), but it does not provide any explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions. There is no mention of when to prefer this over jupiter_get_positions or other siblings, leaving usage to be inferred from the purpose.

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