Jesse MCP Server

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the return structure ('Dict with available boolean and optional error message'), which is critical behavioral info. Implicitly read-only via verb choice, though could explicitly state safety characteristics.

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?

Two clear statements: purpose declaration followed by return specification. No redundant or wasted text. Information is front-loaded with the action verb.

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?

Adequate for a simple zero-parameter check tool. Documents what the tool does, what it returns (available boolean, error message), and distinguishes itself from trading operations. Given the low complexity, nothing essential is missing.

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?

Zero parameters present, which establishes a baseline of 4 per scoring rules. Description correctly focuses on behavior and return values rather than parameters.

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?

Specific verb 'Check' + resource 'jesse-live plugin' + clear scope 'installed and available'. Distinct from siblings like trading_live_real or trading_live_status which perform actual trading operations or check session state, whereas this checks plugin installation.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and sibling context (prerequisite check before using other trading_live_* tools), but lacks explicit guidance like 'call this before trading_live_real' or 'use when you need to verify plugin availability'.

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