Jesse MCP Server

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable scope context ('across all backtests') and aggregation behavior ('aggregated by strategy'), but fails to disclose performance characteristics, caching behavior, or whether this operation is read-only/safe.

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 appropriately brief for a zero-parameter tool, with two distinct sentences covering action and return value. Minor inefficiency in the 'Returns:' formatting with indentation, but no redundant or wasted content.

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 potential complexity of aggregating performance across all backtests, the description is minimally sufficient. While it leverages the existence of an output schema to omit return value details, it omits important context about computational cost, result freshness, and the inability to filter by specific backtests or date ranges.

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?

The input schema contains zero parameters, establishing a baseline of 4 per the scoring rules. The description appropriately does not fabricate parameter semantics where 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?

The description clearly states the verb ('Analyze'), resource ('strategy performance'), and scope ('across all backtests'). It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like 'logs_analyze_history' (general logs) and 'backtest_comprehensive' (execution vs. analysis) through its specific focus on performance aggregation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'strategy_compare_strategies' or 'logs_analyze_history'. It does not mention prerequisites, required state, or exclusions.

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