forex_get_rsi

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 merely says 'Get' with no mention of how the RSI is calculated, what data range is used, any limitations, or whether it supports multiple timeframes. It does not contradict annotations (there are none), but it offers no meaningful behavioral context beyond being a read operation.

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 a single, short sentence that is easy to read and front-loads the key purpose. It contains no fluff or irrelevant details. However, it is perhaps too terse, missing information that could be added without hurting conciseness.

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 has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is inadequate for a full understanding. It does not explain what the RSI output looks like, what the parameters control, or any prerequisites. The agent would need to rely on assumptions or external documentation to use this correctly.

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 schema has 8 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention any parameter or their meaning. The agent is left to guess what 'limit', 'order', 'adjusted', 'timespan', 'timestamp', 'series_type', and 'window_size' do. This is a significant gap since no parameter explanations exist anywhere.

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 states exactly what the tool does: 'Get Relative Strength Index for a forex pair.' The verb 'Get' and resource 'Relative Strength Index' are specific, and 'for a forex pair' clearly distinguishes it from siblings like stocks_get_rsi or crypto_get_rsi. It also differs from other forex indicators (SMA, EMA) by naming the indicator.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention, for example, that it is suitable for momentum analysis or that one could use a different period. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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