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. It discloses pagination defaults (limit: 50, offset: 0) and return type (Dict with sessions list), but lacks safety information (read-only vs destructive), rate limits, or what constitutes a 'session' lifecycle.

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 information is present but uses docstring formatting (Args:, Returns:) which is less ideal than natural language for MCP contexts. The content is not overly verbose, but the structure could be more front-loaded and conversational.

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 simple 2-parameter list operation with an output schema available, the description is minimally adequate. However, given the complex sibling ecosystem (40+ trading tools), it should clarify filtering capabilities (can it filter by paper/real? by date?) which are absent.

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 effectively compensates by documenting both parameters (limit and offset) with their default values in the Args section. It provides sufficient semantic meaning that the bare schema lacks.

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 'Get list of live trading sessions' with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not clarify whether 'live' means 'real money' (vs paper) or 'currently active', nor does it distinguish from siblings like trading_live_status or trading_live_paper, leaving some ambiguity about scope.

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 is provided on when to use this versus the many sibling tools (e.g., trading_live_paper, trading_live_real, trading_live_status). The description does not indicate if this lists paper vs real sessions, active vs historical, or how it relates to session management workflows.

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