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 successfully explains the simulation nature (no real funds), but omits critical behavioral details: whether the session runs asynchronously/backgrounded, persistence characteristics, lifecycle management (relation to trading_paper_stop), or error handling behavior.

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 docstring format (Args/Returns) is well-structured and front-loaded with the core action. The content is efficient with no wasted sentences, though the Returns section is partially redundant given the tool has a formal output schema (per context signals).

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?

While parameter documentation is thorough, the description lacks operational context for this complex 9-parameter tool: no mention of session management, prerequisites for strategy existence, or interaction with the broader trading session lifecycle (siblings like trading_paper_list/status/stop). The Returns summary is adequate given the formal output schema exists.

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 Args section fully compensates by documenting all 9 parameters with concrete examples (e.g., 'SMACrossover', 'BTC-USDT', '1h') and noting optionality. This adds substantial semantic value beyond the bare schema types and defaults.

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 opens with 'Start a paper trading session' providing a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes the scope by explaining it 'simulates trades without using real funds' and is for testing 'before going live', implicitly differentiating it from sibling live trading tools like trading_live_real.

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?

It provides basic usage context ('Use this to test strategies before going live'), but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over similar siblings like backtest_run (offline testing) or trading_live_paper (paper trading via live exchange connection). No prerequisites are mentioned (e.g., whether the strategy must exist or candles must be imported).

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