Jesse MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what metrics are returned (execution time, candles/second), but omits operational details such as whether the benchmark creates temporary resources, requires specific permissions, or has side effects on the system.

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 uses a clear structured format with distinct Args and Returns sections. It is appropriately sized with minimal redundancy, though listing defaults in text that also exist in the schema's default fields is slightly repetitive (but acceptable given the lack of schema descriptions).

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 low complexity (4 optional parameters, simple types, no nesting), the description is sufficiently complete. It documents all inputs and describes the return dictionary's contents, which is adequate given that an output schema exists (per context signals) to define the exact structure.

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?

Excellent compensation for the 0% schema description coverage. The Args section provides clear semantic meaning for all 4 parameters (symbol, timeframe, days, exchange), explaining what each represents along with their default values, effectively documenting parameters missing from the structured schema.

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 runs a 'benchmark backtest' to measure 'execution time' and 'candles/second performance', distinguishing it from sibling tools like backtesting_run that likely perform actual strategy evaluation. However, it could more explicitly contrast with the numerous other backtest-related siblings.

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 states it is 'Useful for understanding how long different backtests will take', providing implied context for when to use it. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or clear differentiation from the regular backtesting_run tool for users who might confuse benchmarking with strategy testing.

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