Jesse MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It comprehensively discloses destructive financial risk ('funds are at risk of total loss'), prerequisites (backtesting/paper trading requirements), and return values (session_id and status or error details). The warning symbols and risk section provide critical behavioral context beyond the schema.

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?

Excellent structure with front-loaded warning symbols, clear section headers (RISKS, REQUIREMENTS, Args, Returns), and zero wasted words. Every sentence serves a critical purpose for a high-stakes financial tool, with risks prominently displayed before usage requirements.

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 the high complexity (9 parameters, real money at risk, destructive potential) and lack of annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers safety warnings, prerequisites, all parameter semantics, and return value structure, providing sufficient context for safe tool invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates perfectly by documenting all 9 parameters with semantic meaning: strategy location ('must exist in strategies directory'), symbol/timeframe formats (examples provided), confirmation exact string requirement, and permission level options ('paper_only', 'confirm_required', 'full_autonomous').

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 explicitly states 'Start LIVE trading with REAL MONEY' with specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'trading_live_paper' by emphasizing real funds versus simulation, and contrasts with backtesting tools by focusing on live execution.

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?

Explicitly lists four requirements including 'Successful paper trading first' and 'Thoroughly backtested strategy,' which clearly indicates when to use this tool versus siblings like 'trading_live_paper' or 'backtesting_run'. The confirmation parameter requirement further enforces appropriate usage guardrails.

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