Jesse MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. While it states the code is not saved, it fails to describe what validation actually entails, error response formats, execution time expectations, or side effects like temporary resource usage.

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 concise at four words with no redundant content. However, given the lack of annotations and schema descriptions, this brevity leaves significant documentation gaps that could be addressed with one additional sentence on validation behavior.

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 omits return value details. For a single-parameter tool, it covers the core persistence distinction, but remains incomplete regarding validation mechanics and parameter specifics given the 0% schema coverage.

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, the description must compensate entirely. It successfully maps the 'code' parameter to 'strategy code', providing crucial semantic context. However, it omits format specifications, language constraints, or examples that would fully compensate 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 clearly states the verb (Validate) and resource (strategy code), and distinguishes from persistence-oriented siblings like strategy_create or backtesting_run via 'without saving'. However, it lacks specificity on what 'validate' entails (syntax check, compilation, or dry-run simulation).

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 phrase 'without saving' implicitly guides usage toward pre-persistence validation scenarios, suggesting when to use this versus tools that persist strategies. However, it lacks explicit 'when to use' guidance or named alternatives for comparison.

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