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. It discloses what the tool examines ('recovery timelines') and returns ('improvement suggestions'), but omits safety characteristics (read-only vs. destructive), performance costs, or side effects.

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 docstring-style format (summary + Args + Returns) is well-structured and front-loaded. The first two sentences are slightly redundant ('Analyze... patterns' vs 'Examines... timelines'), but overall it efficiently conveys necessary information without excessive verbosity.

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?

For a single-parameter analysis tool, the description adequately covers the input and mentions the output structure. However, given zero schema coverage and no annotations, it lacks necessary details like valid strategy_name formats or whether the analysis is run against live or backtested data.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the Args section compensates by documenting the strategy_name parameter as 'Strategy to analyze.' While basic, this adds essential meaning absent from the raw schema, though it lacks format constraints or examples.

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 clearly states the tool analyzes 'historical drawdowns and recovery patterns' and 'when and why losses occur,' providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like risk_stress_test or risk_analyze_portfolio within the text itself.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like risk_stress_test or backtest_analyze_regimes, nor are there prerequisites mentioned (e.g., whether the strategy requires prior backtesting).

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