Jesse MCP Server

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses return values (connection status, version, strategies count) and implies read-only safety through 'Check' semantics. Could enhance by noting idempotency or error states, but adequately covers the core behavior for a health-check tool.

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 statement, return value disclosure, and usage guideline. Front-loaded with the core action and perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 zero parameters and existence of output schema (context signals), the description provides sufficient context. It explains what the tool does, what it returns at a high level, and the operational context (verify reachability), making it complete for a health check endpoint.

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?

Input schema contains zero parameters (empty object) with 100% coverage. Baseline score of 4 applies as per rubric for parameterless tools; description correctly omits parameter discussion since none exist.

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?

Specific verb 'Check' paired with clear resource 'Jesse REST API health and connection status'. Distinguishes clearly from execution-oriented siblings like backtesting_run or backtest_comprehensive by focusing on connectivity/health rather than operations.

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 when to use: 'before running backtests or optimizations'. Provides clear sequencing guidance relative to sibling tools, helping the agent understand this is a prerequisite check rather than an action tool.

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