Jesse MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. It mentions 'concurrently' but fails to disclose execution characteristics: whether it performs a cartesian product of symbols/timeframes/hyperparameters, failure handling (if one backtest fails, do others continue?), typical duration, or caching behavior.

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?

Single sentence is front-loaded and non-redundant, but severely undersized given the tool complexity (7 parameters, batch operation, 0% schema coverage). The brevity harms utility rather than demonstrating efficiency.

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?

While an output schema exists (reducing need for return value description), the definition is incomplete for the input side. With 5 required parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description should explain parameter semantics, valid values, and the batch execution model, but provides none of this.

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?

Schema has 0% description coverage (no parameter descriptions), and the description completely fails to compensate. No explanation of hyperparameters array structure, date formats, concurrent_limit implications, or how symbols/timeframes combine. Critical gap for a 7-parameter tool.

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 uses specific verb 'Run' and resource 'backtests', and includes 'concurrently' which distinguishes it from sequential siblings like 'backtesting_run'. However, it fails to clarify the relationship to 'optimization_run' or explain that 'strategy' is singular (testing one strategy across multiple parameters/symbols) versus comparing different strategies.

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 guidance on when to use this vs. 'optimization_run' (single optimization) or 'backtest_optimize_parameters'. Missing prerequisites (e.g., strategy must exist in system) and no mention of resource intensity or when to reduce concurrent_limit.

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