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 discloses the return value format ('Ranked list of pairs with performance metrics') but fails to indicate whether this is a read-only analysis, whether it modifies strategy configuration, computational cost, or side effects. It mentions analysis occurs but lacks safety profile details critical for a tool named 'optimize'.

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 with explicit Args and Returns sections is appropriate and well-structured. The first two sentences are slightly redundant ('Find the best...' vs 'recommend the best ones'), but overall each section earns its place by compensating for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 single-parameter tool with an implied output schema, the description covers the essential input-output contract. However, it lacks context on valid strategy_name values, expected performance metric types, or error conditions. It meets minimum viability but leaves operational gaps given the complexity of trading strategy optimization.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage. The Args section compensates by defining strategy_name as 'Strategy to optimize pair selection for', adding necessary semantic context missing from the raw schema. While it doesn't specify valid strategy name formats or where to retrieve them, it adequately documents the single required parameter.

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 'Find[s] the best trading pairs for a given strategy' using specific verbs (Find, Analyzes) and resource (trading pairs). It sufficiently distinguishes from siblings like backtest_optimize_parameters (which optimizes parameters, not pair selection) and pairs_correlation (which analyzes correlation, not performance optimization).

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 alternatives like pairs_backtest, optimization_run, or strategy_analyze_optimization_impact. There are no 'when-not-to-use' exclusions or prerequisites mentioned beyond the Args section implying a strategy must exist first.

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