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 adds valuable behavioral context by stating the tool returns 'risk mitigation strategies' (not just raw data), but fails to disclose computational cost, whether this requires pre-loaded portfolio data, or if the operation is read-only vs. state-modifying.

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 is well-structured with clear Args/Returns sections and front-loaded purpose. The 'etc.' in the second sentence is slightly vague, but overall there is minimal waste and the docstring format appropriately compensates for the poor schema documentation.

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?

While the Args/Returns sections provide basic coverage for the 2 parameters and mention of output format, the description lacks prerequisites (e.g., whether portfolio data must be pre-loaded) and behavioral context expected for a complex financial analysis tool with no 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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the Args section compensates effectively by documenting both parameters: 'pairs' are identified as 'Trading pairs' and 'scenario' includes concrete examples ('market crash', 'flash crash'). It could be improved by specifying the format/syntax for trading pairs (e.g., 'BTC-USD' vs 'BTC/USD').

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 'stress test[s] a portfolio under extreme market scenarios' with specific examples (market crashes, liquidity crises). This distinguishes it from sibling risk tools like risk_var or risk_monte_carlo by emphasizing 'extreme' scenario analysis rather than general statistical risk measurement.

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 the numerous sibling risk tools (risk_var, risk_monte_carlo, risk_analyze_portfolio, etc.). While examples imply usage for crash scenarios, there is no 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance.

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