Jesse MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure and succeeds partially by specifying the analytical dimensions (correlation, concentration, diversification) and that it returns recommendations. However, it omits operational characteristics such as whether the analysis is read-only, computationally expensive, or requires real-time market data. The safety profile and idempotency are not addressed.

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 description uses a standard docstring format with Args and Returns sections that structure the information clearly. However, the initial sentence 'Analyze risk profile of a trading portfolio' is somewhat generic and could front-load the specific risk dimensions earlier. The content is not verbose but could be more information-dense.

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 has a single parameter and an output schema exists, the description adequately covers basic functionality but leaves gaps in sibling differentiation and input specifications. The mention of 'recommendations' in the return description adds useful context beyond the schema, though operational safety characteristics are missing given the lack of annotations.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and while the description compensates by identifying the parameter as 'List of trading pairs to analyze,' it lacks critical details such as expected string format (e.g., 'BTC-USD'), case sensitivity, or list size constraints. The semantic meaning is present but insufficient for proper usage given the schema's lack of documentation.

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 specifies the tool analyzes risk profiles using clear verbs and identifies the resource as a trading portfolio. It distinguishes itself from sibling risk tools by specifying it evaluates correlation, concentration, and diversification rather than other risk metrics like VaR or drawdown. However, it does not explicitly contrast with similar risk analysis tools such as risk_var or risk_stress_test to guide selection.

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 risk_var, risk_stress_test, or risk_report. It does not mention prerequisites such as portfolio composition requirements or data availability. No exclusion criteria or usage boundaries are specified.

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