rsi

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Fetch' implies a read operation, but it doesn't specify data sources, rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what the output looks like. This leaves critical behavioral traits undefined for a tool with 6 parameters.

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 extremely concise with a single phrase 'Fetch relative strength index'. While under-specified, it's front-loaded and wastes no words, earning full marks for brevity and structure within this dimension.

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 complexity (6 parameters, 4 required), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does beyond the name, how to use parameters, what behavior to expect, or what results are returned, leaving the agent with insufficient information to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 6 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no information about parameter meanings (e.g., what 'symbol', 'interval', 'time_period' represent), expected formats, or default values, failing to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 'Fetch relative strength index' restates the tool name 'rsi' (which stands for Relative Strength Index), making it tautological. It doesn't specify what resource is being fetched (e.g., financial data for a security) or provide any distinguishing context from sibling tools like 'stochrsi' or other technical indicators in the list.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for technical indicators (e.g., 'stochrsi', 'macd', 'cci'), the description offers no context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons to help an agent select the right tool.

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