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 total_trades and trades list) and pagination behavior, which is valuable. However, it lacks information on read-only safety, rate limits, or whether the session must be active/stopped to query trades.

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 standard docstring format (Args/Returns) that is appropriately structured and front-loaded with the purpose. While the Args section repeats default values already present in the schema, it is necessary given the 0% schema description coverage. No sentences are wasted.

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 tool with 3 simple parameters and an output schema (indicated in context), the description adequately covers inputs and return type. However, it lacks detail on what fields constitute a 'trade' object in the returned list and omits error handling scenarios (e.g., invalid session_id).

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 must compensate. The Args section documents all three parameters: session_id (though tautological as 'Session ID'), limit (with default behavior), and offset (explicitly noting pagination). This successfully fills the schema documentation gap despite the weak session_id description.

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 first sentence 'Get trades executed in a paper trading session' provides a clear verb (Get) and resource (trades) with scope (paper trading). It distinguishes from siblings like trading_paper_equity_history or trading_paper_metrics by focusing specifically on executed trades, though it could more explicitly differentiate from trading_live_orders.

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 like trading_paper_list (likely lists sessions vs trades) or trading_live_orders. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing an active session_id from trading_paper_start, or when pagination is necessary.

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