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 disclosure burden. It compensates by detailing the exact return structure (enabled, rate_per_second, available_tokens, etc.), providing transparency into what the tool produces. It does not explicitly state safety (read-only nature) but this is strongly implied by 'Get'.

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?

Two distinct sections: single-sentence purpose declaration followed by structured 'Returns:' documentation. No filler text. Information density is high with zero redundancy.

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 zero parameters and the presence of an output schema (per context signals), the tool is inherently low-complexity. The description adequately covers both invocation (purpose) and result structure, which is complete for a simple status-monitoring utility.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters. Per scoring rules, 0 params establishes baseline 4. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed by omitting parameter discussion and leading directly with the action.

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 'Get' with clear resource 'rate limiter status' and scope 'Jesse API calls'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings which focus on trading, backtesting, and risk operations rather than API infrastructure monitoring.

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 invoke this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or triggering conditions (e.g., 'use before bulk operations'). The description assumes the agent knows when to check rate limits.

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