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 content ('Fear & Greed score and rating with historical context'), which adds value beyond the schema. However, it lacks operational details such as data freshness, caching behavior, rate limits, or whether this is a read-only operation.

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 compact with two efficient sentences. It front-loads the action ('Get current market sentiment') and uses a Returns section to structure the output description without verbosity.

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 (no parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It identifies the data source (Fear & Greed Index) and hints at the return structure, which is adequate for a stateless data retrieval operation.

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, which establishes a baseline score of 4. The description correctly implies no configuration is needed for the basic sentiment retrieval, making this appropriate for the schema structure.

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 'Get[s] current market sentiment from Fear & Greed Index' with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling monitoring tools like monitor_get_risks or monitor_daily_scan, though the specific 'Fear & Greed Index' reference provides implicit scoping.

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. It does not indicate whether this should be used for real-time trading decisions, historical analysis, or how it compares to monitor_scan_opportunities or other market data tools.

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