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 successfully documents the return format (recommendations with sizing and cost-benefit analysis) but fails to disclose safety properties (read-only vs. destructive), authentication requirements, 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 format (Args/Returns) is well-structured and appropriately sized. The first two sentences are slightly redundant ('Recommend' vs 'Suggests'), but overall every section earns its place by conveying distinct information.

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 2-parameter tool with simple strings and documented returns, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits constraints (valid risk_type values beyond examples), error conditions, or data freshness expectations 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 fully compensate. The Args section excellently documents both parameters with clear examples (e.g., 'BTCUSDT', 'downside', 'volatility'), providing necessary semantic context that the schema lacks.

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 recommends hedging strategies and suggests instruments/positioning, using specific verbs and resources. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling risk analysis tools (e.g., risk_stress_test, risk_analyze_portfolio) beyond the hedging focus.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other risk assessment siblings, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. Usage must be inferred solely from the functional description.

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