jupiter_get_staked_jup

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.