jupiter_get_platforms

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.