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 the return structure ('Dict with sessions list and total count'), which adds necessary context, but omits read-only/safety characteristics, pagination behavior, or rate limiting considerations.

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?

Extremely efficient two-sentence structure. The first sentence states the action and target; the second documents the return value. No redundant or filler text present.

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?

Adequate for a simple list operation with zero parameters. The return value description compensates somewhat for lack of annotations. Could be improved by noting pagination limits or the maximum number of sessions returned, but sufficient for basic 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?

Input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage (trivially). Description implicitly confirms there are no filtering options by stating 'List all', which aligns with the empty schema. Baseline 4 applies for zero-parameter tools.

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?

States specific verb 'List' and resource 'paper trading sessions' with scope 'all', making the core function unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'trading_paper_status' (which likely checks a specific session) or 'trading_live_sessions', relying instead on naming conventions.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., 'trading_live_sessions' for live trading, or 'trading_paper_status' for specific session details). Usage must be inferred from the name and description alone.

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