Jesse MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It documents the return structure (stopped_at, duration, final_metrics) but omits side effects like whether the session can be resumed, if data is persisted, or cleanup actions.

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 standard docstring format with Args and Returns sections. The first sentence states the core purpose immediately, and there is no redundant or wasted text.

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 tool with output schema information provided in the Returns section, the description is adequately complete. A reference to trading_paper_start or trading_paper_list for obtaining the session_id would improve it further.

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%, so the description compensates by documenting the single parameter in the Args section ('Session ID to stop'). While minimal, it provides sufficient semantic context for a straightforward identifier parameter.

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 a specific verb ('Stop') + resource ('paper trading session') + outcome ('return final metrics'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like trading_paper_start or trading_paper_status.

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 docstring structure and return value description imply usage (call this to terminate a session), but there is no explicit 'when to use' guidance, prerequisites (e.g., session must be active), or contrast with trading_paper_update.

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