Jesse MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions 'transitions' implying change detection, it fails to explain the detection methodology (despite 'detection_method' being a parameter), computational complexity, or whether the operation is deterministic. The mention of 'transitions' provides minimal value beyond the tool name.

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 is not verbose, it is inappropriately brief for a 6-parameter analytical tool. The description suffers from underspecification rather than efficient communication—no front-loaded critical context is provided, and the sentence does not earn its place given the schema complexity it must support.

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 accepts complex nested backtest data and has 6 configuration parameters with 0% inline documentation, the description is inadequate. Although an output schema exists (reducing the need for return value description), the complete absence of input parameter guidance and lack of domain context (pairs trading) leaves significant 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?

With 0% schema description coverage across all 6 parameters, the description completely fails to compensate. It does not explain the required 'backtest_results' input format (array of objects), what 'n_regimes' controls, available 'detection_method' options beyond the 'hmm' default, or the implications of the boolean flags. This is a critical gap for a tool with complex nested inputs.

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 a specific verb ('Identify') and resource ('market regimes and transitions'), but fails to contextualize this within the pairs trading domain implied by the tool name 'pairs_regimes'. Crucially, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'backtest_analyze_regimes', leaving ambiguity about which regime detection tool to use.

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 like 'backtest_analyze_regimes' or 'pairs_correlation'. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., that backtest_results must be generated first) or when regime detection is appropriate versus other analysis methods.

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