Jesse MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description lacks explicit safety guarantees, idempotency statements, or performance characteristics (e.g., cached vs. real-time). It compensates partially by documenting the return structure ('Dict with exchanges list...').

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 appropriately front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence. The 'Returns' block adds useful structure, though sentences 1 and 2 are slightly redundant ('Get list' vs 'Returns a list'). Overall efficient with no extraneous content.

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 (zero parameters), the presence of an output schema, and the clear documentation of return values in the description, the definition is complete. It adequately covers what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns.

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 description coverage is effectively 100% (empty schema). With zero parameters, the baseline score is 4 as no additional semantic explanation is required in the description.

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 'Get[s] list of supported exchanges in Jesse' with a specific verb and resource. While it implies distinction from action-oriented siblings like 'backtesting_run' by focusing on validation, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar lookup tools.

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 clear guidance: 'Use this to validate exchange names before creating trading workflows or backtests.' This establishes the specific prerequisite context for invocation, though it does not explicitly name alternatives to avoid.

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