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 adds value by disclosing return value contents ('session status, equity, positions, and metrics'), but fails to state whether this is read-only, what happens if the session_id is invalid, or rate limiting concerns.

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?

Uses a clear docstring format with Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place: the opening defines purpose, the Args section documents the single parameter, and Returns clarifies output structure. Slightly formal but efficient.

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 single-parameter status tool with an output schema present, describing the return dictionary fields provides adequate context. However, missing error handling behavior and session lifecycle context (e.g., can query stopped sessions?) leaves gaps for an agent operating without prior domain knowledge.

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%, requiring the description to compensate. The Args section provides 'session_id: Session ID to check', which successfully adds semantic meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it lacks format details or guidance on how to obtain valid session IDs.

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] current status of a paper trading session' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from live trading siblings via the 'paper' modifier, though it could better differentiate from related paper tools like 'trading_paper_list' or 'trading_paper_metrics'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'trading_paper_list' to discover sessions first), nor prerequisites such as requiring an active session ID. The description provides operational syntax but no strategic usage context.

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