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 disclosure but only mentions the return type ('Dict with cancellation status'). It fails to clarify side effects (what happens to open orders?), reversibility, or that this is a destructive/high-risk operation for live trading.

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 clear and appropriately sized. No sentences are wasted, though the structured format is necessary only because the schema lacks 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 2-parameter tool, the description adequately covers inputs and return type. However, given the high-stakes nature of live trading cancellation, the omission of behavioral warnings, side effects, or error conditions leaves significant gaps.

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 description successfully compensates by documenting both parameters in the Args section: session_id is identified as the 'Session ID to cancel' and paper_mode clarifies the boolean logic ('True if paper trading session, False if live').

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 specific action ('Cancel') and resource ('running live/paper trading session'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'trading_paper_stop' or mention when to prefer this over other session management tools.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'trading_paper_stop'), nor does it mention prerequisites such as requiring an active session or the implications of cancelling live vs paper trading.

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