Jesse MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Decompose' but fails to explain the methodology (regression-based? PCA?), computational intensity, whether results are cached, or what the decomposition produces beyond implying factor loadings and residuals via the parameter names.

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?

While the single sentence avoids verbosity, it is underweight for a tool with 6 undocumented parameters, nested objects, and an output schema. Critical context is missing not because of efficient editing but because of insufficient specification.

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 complexity (financial factor analysis, statistical decomposition, 6 parameters with 0% schema coverage), the description is inadequate. It does not leverage the existence of an output schema to justify brevity regarding returns, nor does it explain the input requirements sufficiently.

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 description coverage is 0% for 6 complex parameters including nested objects (backtest_result, factor_returns). The description completely fails to compensate, mentioning none of the parameters (e.g., include_residuals, confidence_level, analysis_period) or their semantic relationships.

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 identifies the core action ('Decompose') and domain ('systematic factors'), but fails to contextualize it within the pairs trading ecosystem suggested by the tool name and sibling tools like pairs_backtest. It also omits that this operates on backtest results despite requiring a 'backtest_result' parameter.

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 provided on when to use this versus similar analysis tools like backtest_analyze_regimes or pairs_regimes. No prerequisites are mentioned (e.g., that a backtest must be run first), nor are there any exclusion criteria or alternative suggestions.

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