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 of behavioral disclosure. It does not clarify whether this is a read-only operation, what computational resources it consumes (e.g., Monte Carlo simulations), or that it aggregates multiple risk analyses. The agent cannot determine safety characteristics from the description alone.

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 single sentence is concise, but given the complexity (6 parameters, numerous siblings, nested objects), it is underspecified. The sentence does not earn its place by conveying sufficient information for agent decision-making.

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?

Despite having an output schema that excuses return value description, the tool has 6 undocumented parameters (0% schema coverage) and operates in a crowded namespace of risk tools. The description inadequately addresses this complexity, leaving critical gaps in understanding the tool's scope and inputs.

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 for 6 parameters including complex toggles (include_monte_carlo, include_var_analysis) and a required nested object (backtest_result). The description mentions none of these parameters or their semantics.

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 states the tool generates risk assessments and recommendations, providing a verb and resource. However, it fails to distinguish this tool from specific risk analysis siblings (risk_var, risk_stress_test, risk_monte_carlo) despite this being an aggregating report that can include those analyses.

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 comprehensive report tool versus the individual risk analysis tools (risk_var, risk_stress_test, etc.). The description does not mention the required backtest_result input or prerequisites.

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