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. It discloses the data source ('Jesse database') and return value ('Backtest history with metrics and trends'), but fails to mention safety characteristics (read-only nature), rate limits, or whether this queries a local vs remote 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 efficiently structured with a clear first sentence stating purpose, followed by concise Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information.

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 simplicity (single optional parameter) and the existence of an output schema, the description is appropriately complete. It documents the parameter (compensating for the bare schema) and identifies the specific database context ('Jesse').

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the Args section compensates effectively by documenting the 'days' parameter semantics ('Number of days to analyze') and its default value (30), providing sufficient context for invocation.

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 action ('Analyze') and resource ('recent backtest history from Jesse database'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'logs_strategy_performance' or 'backtest_comprehensive' by focusing specifically on historical backtest data rather than live performance or running new tests.

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?

There is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like 'backtest_analyze_regimes' or 'logs_weekly_report', nor any mention of prerequisites such as requiring existing backtest data in the Jesse database.

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