Jesse MCP Server

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. States it uses no real money and returns session_id/status, but omits critical operational details: whether it runs asynchronously (likely given `jobs_list` sibling), session persistence, or how to monitor/stop the session using related tools.

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 Args and Returns sections. Minor redundancy between 'simulated, no real money' opening and 'simulates trades without using real funds' second sentence. Otherwise efficient with no wasted words.

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?

Given 7 parameters and session complexity, description covers basics adequately. However, missing operational context crucial for a session-starting tool: session lifecycle, connection to monitoring siblings (`trading_live_status`, `trading_live_cancel`), or runtime behavior expectations.

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?

Excellent compensation for 0% schema description coverage. Description documents all 7 parameters with semantics (e.g., 'must exist in strategies directory'), format examples ('BTC-USDT', '1h'), and source context ('ID of stored exchange API key in Jesse').

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?

Clearly states it starts a simulated paper trading session with specific verb and resource. Mentions 'before going live' implying distinction from live trading siblings. However, fails to clarify relationship to sibling `trading_paper_start`, leaving ambiguity about which paper trading tool to use.

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?

Provides implicit guidance ('Use this to test strategies before going live') establishing the simulation context. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives like `trading_live_real` or `trading_paper_start`.

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