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 of behavioral disclosure. While 'Analyze' implies a read-only operation, the description fails to specify what constitutes 'opportunities' (e.g., correlation breakdowns, mean-reversion signals), computational intensity, or the specific correlation methodology used (Pearson, Spearman, etc.).

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 single sentence is efficiently written with no wasted words, earning its place. However, it is inappropriately sized for a 6-parameter tool with complex inputs; the brevity creates information gaps rather than effective front-loading of critical details.

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 presence of 6 parameters (one required and complex), zero schema coverage, and numerous similar sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the input data format, output structure (despite an output schema existing), or how this analysis fits into the broader pairs trading workflow.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but minimally does so. It mentions 'correlations' which provides context for correlation_threshold, but offers no guidance on the complex required parameter backtest_results (an array of objects), lookback_period units, or the purpose of include_heatmap/rolling flags.

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 verbs ('Analyze', 'identify') and resources ('cross-asset correlations', 'pairs trading opportunities') that clearly convey the tool's function. It implies distinction from sibling tools like pairs_backtest and pairs_factors by focusing specifically on correlation analysis rather than backtesting or factor analysis, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus the numerous sibling alternatives (e.g., pairs_backtest for validation, pairs_factors for factor-based selection). The description lacks prerequisites, such as requiring existing backtest data, or exclusion criteria.

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