RSI heatmap: Wilder RSI(14) on eight timeframes for the top-400 crypto perps and every TradFi perp

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the live nature of the board, the market universe, and overbought/oversold counts per interval. It doesn't mention refresh cadence or detailed response shape, but for a read-only query tool this is acceptable.

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 definition is compact and front-loaded with trigger conditions, then follows with the return value and filtering options. Every clause earns its place: universe, intervals, counts, and parameter use are all covered with no filler.

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 straightforward read-only board tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (live heatmap with per-interval overbought/oversold counts) and how to shape results via symbol, kind, and sort. More exact output field details could be added, but not enough is missing to prevent correct invocation.

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 100%, with all three parameters described and two constrained by enums. The description merely restates their roles ('Filter by symbol or kind, sort by an interval') without adding semantic details beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Returns the live board...'), names the exact universe (top-400 Binance crypto perps by volume plus every TradFi perp), and ties to concrete user intents (overbought/oversold, multi-timeframe RSI, one contract's RSI on specific intervals). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_funding_heatmap or get_top_movers.

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?

It explicitly states when to call the tool: when the user asks about overbought/oversold coins, a crypto RSI heatmap, multi-timeframe RSI, or a single contract's RSI across listed timeframes. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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