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. It discloses what risk dimensions are evaluated (liquidation, margin, safe levels) and mentions the return type includes 'recommendations.' However, it omits whether this is read-only, computationally expensive, requires specific market data access, or has 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 description uses a standard docstring format with clear Args and Returns sections. It is appropriately sized at four lines of actual content, front-loaded with the core purpose, and avoids unnecessary verbosity while documenting the parameters that the schema fails to describe.

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 that an output schema exists (indicated by context signals), the brief mention of return values is acceptable. The two parameters are documented, but given the tool's complexity (financial risk assessment) and lack of annotations, the description lacks guidance on prerequisites, valid input ranges, or behavioral constraints that would make it fully complete.

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%, requiring the description to compensate. It provides 'Leverage multiplier (e.g., 2.0 for 2x)' for the leverage parameter, which is helpful, but only offers 'Strategy using leverage' for strategy_name, which is minimally informative. It partially compensates for the schema deficiency but doesn't provide comprehensive parameter 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 clearly states the tool 'Assess[es] the risks of trading with leverage' and specifies it evaluates 'liquidation risk, margin requirements, and safe levels.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like risk_analyze_portfolio or risk_var by focusing specifically on leverage-related risks.

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 explains what the tool evaluates but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like risk_stress_test or risk_analyze_portfolio. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or workflow guidance mentioned.

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