Calculate the Relative Strength Index (RSI) for a stock using the FMP RSI API. This tool helps users analyze momentum and overbought/oversold conditions based on historical price data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | End date (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| from | No | Start date (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| symbol | Yes | Stock symbol | |
| timeframe | Yes | Timeframe (1min, 5min, 15min, 30min, 1hour, 4hour, 1day) | |
| periodLength | Yes | Period length for the indicator |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the calculation and the underlying API, but does not disclose output format (e.g., whether it returns a single value or a series), error behavior, rate limits, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a financial data tool.
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 is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no fluff. It efficiently communicates both what the tool does and why it is useful.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but not complete. It does not explain what the return value looks like or how optional parameters (from/to) behave, which would be helpful for agents selecting this tool among many similar indicator tools.
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?
All parameters are described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, though the phrase 'based on historical price data' loosely relates to the date and timeframe parameters.
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's function: 'Calculate the Relative Strength Index (RSI) for a stock using the FMP RSI API.' It also explains the purpose ('analyze momentum and overbought/oversold conditions'), which distinguishes it from sibling indicator tools like getSMA or getEMA.
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 a clear use case: 'This tool helps users analyze momentum and overbought/oversold conditions based on historical price data.' This gives context for when to use it, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.