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 return value composition ('Daily report with opportunities, risks, and recommendations') and internal behavior ('Scans multiple symbols and strategies'). However, it lacks critical operational context: whether this modifies state, execution duration expectations, rate limiting, or if results are cached/persisted.

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 structured docstring format (Args/Returns) that efficiently organizes information. The main narrative is brief (two sentences) though slightly redundant ('identify trading opportunities' vs 'find signals'). The Args section is necessary given the schema deficiency, earning its place.

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 complexity (multi-strategy scanning, comprehensive reporting) and lack of annotations, the description provides baseline adequacy. It leverages the existence of an output schema (per context signals) by not over-explaining return structures, yet misses operational context like execution time or differentiation from monitor_scan_opportunities that would make it complete.

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 has 0% description coverage (properties lack descriptions), but the description effectively compensates via the Args section, clarifying that 'symbols' is a 'Comma-separated list.' This adds essential formatting context missing from the schema. With only one parameter and zero schema coverage, this compensation is adequate.

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 states a clear purpose with specific verb ('Run') and resource ('daily market scan') to identify trading opportunities. It distinguishes from siblings like monitor_get_risks or monitor_get_sentiment by covering multiple aspects (opportunities, risks, recommendations). However, it fails to clarify how this differs from monitor_scan_opportunities, which appears to have overlapping functionality.

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 monitor_scan_opportunities or monitor_get_sentiment. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., market data availability), scheduling expectations (despite 'daily' in the name), or when to prefer this comprehensive scan over targeted monitoring tools.

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