Jesse MCP Server

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 successfully identifies the three market regimes tested (trending, ranging, volatile) and mentions that the output includes 'adaptation suggestions.' However, it lacks information about execution time, whether results are cached, side effects, or whether this is a read-only analysis operation.

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 uses a clear docstring structure with distinct Args and Returns sections. The content is appropriately front-loaded with the purpose statement. The second sentence ('Tests performance...') adds specific regime details that somewhat overlap with the first sentence but provides necessary specificity about the regimes tested.

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 has only two simple string parameters and an output schema exists (per context signals), the description provides adequate completeness. It explains the input parameters, the specific analysis scope (three regime types), and the nature of the return value (performance analysis with adaptation suggestions) without needing to detail the full output structure.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by providing basic semantic definitions for both parameters: strategy_name is the 'Strategy to analyze' and pair is the 'Trading pair.' While minimal, these descriptions provide necessary context missing from the schema, though they could be enhanced with format examples or constraints.

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 analyzes strategy performance across specific market regimes (trending, ranging, volatile). It distinguishes itself from sibling backtest tools by focusing on regime-specific analysis rather than timeframes, parameters, or comprehensive testing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like pairs_regimes or backtest_comprehensive.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like backtest_comprehensive, backtest_compare_timeframes, or pairs_regimes. There are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or selection criteria to help the agent choose this specific analysis type.

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