Jesse MCP Server

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses return format ('List of identified risks with severity levels') but omits operational context: data freshness, market coverage, caching behavior, rate limits, or whether this requires specific market data subscriptions.

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?

Extremely efficient two-sentence structure. First sentence establishes purpose, second discloses return type. No redundant phrases or unnecessary elaboration given the simple tool signature.

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?

Adequate for a zero-parameter tool with existing output schema, but incomplete given the dense sibling ecosystem. Lacks differentiation from similar monitoring tools ('monitor_daily_scan') and analytical risk tools ('risk_report').

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?

Zero parameters present with 100% schema coverage (empty object). Baseline score applies as there are no parameters requiring semantic clarification beyond the 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?

States specific action (Identify) and resource (current market risks and warning signs). The term 'current' suggests real-time monitoring scope, distinguishing it from historical analysis tools, though it could explicitly differentiate from sibling 'risk_' analysis tools.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this versus numerous risk-related siblings like 'risk_report', 'risk_var', or 'monitor_daily_scan'. No prerequisites or exclusions mentioned despite complex ecosystem of 60+ tools.

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