jupiter_get_price

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.