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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it leaves critical operational details unspecified: how the values must be passed, what the output looks like, whether a minimum series length is required, and how the RSI is computed in edge cases. The reference to 'provide values' also conflicts with the empty input schema, undermining an agent's ability to invoke the tool correctly.

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 short and front-loaded, with the core action in the first words and the default period included economically. However, the phrase 'provide values' is vague and creates the false impression that inputs are directly accepted, so the wording is not fully precise. Overall it is concise but slightly misleading.

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?

The description is incomplete for a calculation tool with a completely empty schema and no output schema. It does not explain how to submit the price series, what the response structure is, what minimum data length is required, or how the optional period is specified. Given the schema provides no operational detail, the description must compensate, and it does not.

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?

The input schema has zero properties, yet the description tells the agent to 'provide values and optional period (default 14).' This is a direct mismatch: there is no schema-defined way to pass the mentioned values or period, and the description does not specify parameter names, types, or formats. An agent following the description would attempt to supply arguments the schema does not accept.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Calculate the Relative Strength Index (RSI) of a price series.' It also names the input ('values') and a tunable setting ('period'), which distinguishes it from sibling technical-indicator tools like x402-sma, x402-ema, and x402-macd. The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention other indicator tools (e.g., x402-atr, x402-stochastic, x402-macd) or state any exclusion criteria. The only usage hint is the instruction to 'provide values and optional period,' which is procedural rather than contextual.

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