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 of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the return type ('Dict with session details'), this is redundant with the existing output schema. It fails to disclose error behaviors (e.g., session not found), rate limits, or whether this is a read-only operation.

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 description uses a structured docstring format (Args/Returns) that is front-loaded with the core purpose. While slightly verbose for MCP conventions, it efficiently conveys information without redundant prose.

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 a single parameter, no annotations, and an existing output schema, the description covers the minimum viable information by explaining the parameter and referencing the return structure. However, it lacks richness regarding possible status values, error conditions, or session lifecycle context.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage. The description compensates by documenting the single parameter in the Args section: 'session_id: Session ID to check'. This adds essential semantic meaning absent from the schema, though it could further specify the ID format or source.

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 the tool 'Get[s] status of a specific live trading session', providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar siblings like 'trading_live_check' or 'trading_live_sessions'.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'trading_live_sessions' to list all sessions or 'trading_live_check' for health checks). There are no prerequisites or exclusion criteria mentioned.

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