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 and discloses key behaviors: the async/sync execution modes, the iterative refinement process, and the exact return dictionary structure. It does not mention error states or file system side effects implied by the 'path' return value.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections (summary, async behavior, Args, Returns). Information is front-loaded with behavioral modes early. The Args/Returns format is slightly verbose but necessary given the lack of schema annotations.

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 complex 10-parameter tool with mutation behavior and async capabilities, the description is comprehensive. It covers inputs, operational modes, and outputs (despite the existence of an output schema, the Returns section ensures clarity). Minor gap in prerequisite/permission documentation.

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 comprehensively compensates by documenting all 10 parameters with clear semantics, default values (e.g., risk_per_trade 0.02 = 2%), and optionality. This is essential for agent usage given the schema provides no descriptions.

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 creates a strategy with 'iterative refinement' (specific verb + resource). The 'Ralph Wiggum loop' reference, while jargon, implies a specific iterative process that distinguishes this from simple creation. However, the cultural reference slightly obscures clarity for those unfamiliar with the term.

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 operational guidance on when to use async_mode (returns job_id immediately) versus synchronous execution (progress logging). However, it lacks explicit differentiation from siblings like 'strategy_refine' or 'strategy_delete' to guide tool selection.

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