Jesse MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does functionally but omits critical operational details: whether results are persisted to disk, computational intensity/duration expectations, caching behavior, or side effects. 'Tests performance' describes output, not behavior.

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-style structure with Args and Returns sections. It is appropriately sized without redundant prose. The key information (parameter formats and examples) is easily scannable, though the Returns section is vague.

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 presence of an output schema, the description appropriately avoids detailing return values. Parameter documentation is complete despite zero schema coverage. However, for a complex analytical tool with many siblings, the description lacks necessary context about tool selection criteria and operational constraints.

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 has 0% description coverage, making the Args section in the description essential. It successfully documents all four parameters, providing crucial semantic context including the date format (YYYY-MM-DD) and a concrete example for the trading pair ('BTCUSDT'), effectively compensating for the schema's lack of metadata.

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 core action ('Run a comprehensive backtest') and what the tool produces (performance tests, metrics, analysis). However, it fails to differentiate from siblings like 'backtesting_run' or 'backtest_monte_carlo', leaving ambiguity about what makes this specific tool '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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the numerous backtesting alternatives (backtesting_run, pairs_backtest, etc.), nor any mention of prerequisites like requiring imported candles or existing strategy definitions. The description assumes the user knows when to select this specific variant.

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