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 burden. It discloses that the tool returns a 'list of strategy names,' providing basic output context. However, it omits details about caching behavior, rate limiting, or explicit safety confirmation (read-only nature), which are relevant given the lack of annotations.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: purpose is front-loaded, followed by usage guidance, then return value context. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler 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 presence of an output schema, the description appropriately avoids detailing return structures. However, the complete lack of parameter documentation (in both schema and description) creates a gap for a tool that nominally 'lists all' but actually filters based on the undocumented 'include_test_strategies' flag.

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 for the 'include_test_strategies' boolean parameter, the description fails to compensate by explaining what this parameter does (e.g., whether to include experimental or test strategies in the list). This leaves the single optional parameter effectively undocumented.

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 'List[s] all available trading strategies' with a specific verb and resource. It partially distinguishes from siblings like 'backtesting_read_strategy' by emphasizing it returns names for use with other functions, though it could explicitly contrast with single-strategy retrieval 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?

Explicitly states 'Use this as the FIRST step to see what strategies are available to test,' providing clear sequencing guidance. It also mentions downstream tools ('backtest(), analyze_results(), etc.') indicating the workflow context, though it lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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