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. While 'Read' implies a safe, non-destructive operation, the description fails to disclose error behavior (e.g., what happens if the strategy doesn't exist), return format, or whether this accesses files or a database.

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 extremely brief (four words) with zero redundancy. However, it may be overly terse given the lack of schema documentation and annotations, failing to provide sufficient information density for an agent to use the tool confidently.

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?

Despite having an output schema (reducing the need to describe return values), the description is inadequate due to complete lack of parameter documentation and behavioral context. A tool reading source code should clarify the identifier format and access permissions.

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 coverage is 0% (the 'name' parameter lacks a description). The description implies the parameter refers to a strategy name through context, but does not explicitly document what constitutes a valid name or how to obtain one. Minimal compensation for the schema deficiency.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('strategy source code'), clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like 'backtesting_run' or 'strategy_create'. However, it omits domain context that would clarify these are trading strategies.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this versus 'strategy_metadata' or 'backtesting_list_strategies'. Does not mention that 'backtesting_list_strategies' may be needed first to obtain valid names.

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