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 mentions the return type (Dict with orders list) but fails to disclose if this is a read-only operation, error handling behavior, or whether it returns all orders or only active ones.

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?

Uses structured docstring format (Args/Returns) which is efficient, but content is minimal with redundant 'Session ID' text. Could add more value without sacrificing brevity.

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?

Fails to leverage sibling tools context (e.g., trading_live_sessions) to explain session_id provenance. Given simple single-parameter structure, should clarify order types returned and link to session management tools.

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 has 0% description coverage. Description provides only 'Session ID' under Args, which merely repeats the parameter name without explaining format, constraints, or that this ID likely comes from trading_live_sessions.

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 provides a clear verb (Get) and resource (orders) with scope (live trading session). It distinguishes from siblings like trading_live_equity or trading_live_logs by specifying orders, though it doesn't explicitly clarify the difference from trading_live_check.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this versus alternatives like trading_live_check or trading_live_status. No mention of prerequisites such as needing an active session from trading_live_sessions.

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