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 mentions return format ('List of trading opportunities with signals and confidence') but omits safety profile, side effects, performance characteristics, or whether this triggers actual trades versus analysis-only.

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?

Uses efficient Args/Returns docstring format. Three sentences total with zero waste, front-loaded with purpose statement. Appropriate size for the tool's complexity.

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 2-parameter tool with output schema (structured return data available elsewhere). Missing: differentiation from monitor_daily_scan, valid strategy enumeration, and behavioral safety details. Meets minimum viable threshold but has clear gaps.

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?

Excellent compensation for 0% schema description coverage by documenting that both parameters expect 'Comma-separated list' format. However, it does not specify valid strategy values (e.g., referencing backtesting_list_strategies) or symbol format constraints beyond the defaults shown.

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?

Clear verb 'Scan' with specific resource 'trading opportunities' and scope 'across symbols and strategies'. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tool 'monitor_daily_scan' which appears to have similar 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'monitor_daily_scan' or the backtesting suite. No prerequisites or conditions mentioned.

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