Jesse MCP Server

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Fails to disclose what calculation methods are available (historical, parametric, Monte Carlo), computational cost implications of monte_carlo_sims=10000, or whether results are cached.

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?

Single sentence is not verbose, but severely under-specified for a 5-parameter quantitative tool requiring complex nested objects. Conciseness becomes inadequacy given the schema complexity.

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 (reducing description burden for returns), the description inadequately explains input requirements. The mandatory 'backtest_result' parameter—accepting arbitrary additionalProperties—desperately needs documentation that is absent.

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 coverage is 0% and description adds no parameter documentation. Critically fails to explain the required 'backtest_result' object structure, valid values for 'method' (defaults to 'all'), or semantics of confidence_levels/time_horizons arrays.

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?

States the specific financial metric (Value at Risk) and mentions multiple methods, but fails to differentiate from sibling tool 'risk_monte_carlo' which likely overlaps in functionality. The phrase 'multiple methods' is vague without enumeration.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'risk_monte_carlo', 'risk_stress_test', or 'risk_analyze_portfolio'. Given the crowded risk tool namespace, explicit selection criteria are needed.

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