stochrsi

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 states what is fetched, with no information about rate limits, authentication needs, data sources, response format, error handling, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'fetch' implies reading). This is inadequate for a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema.

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, efficient phrase with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for its limited content, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness. Every word ('Fetch stochastic relative strength index') directly states the tool's purpose without redundancy.

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 (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools), the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, parameter meanings, output format, or differentiation from alternatives. For a technical financial indicator tool, this minimal description fails to provide enough context for effective use.

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 description adds no meaning beyond what the input schema provides. With 0% schema description coverage and 9 parameters (4 required), the schema only shows types and requirements. The description doesn't explain what parameters like 'symbol', 'interval', 'time_period', or 'series_type' mean in context, nor does it clarify technical terms like 'fastkperiod' or 'fastdmatype'. This leaves parameters largely undocumented.

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 stochastic relative strength index' clearly states the action (fetch) and the resource (stochastic RSI), which is a specific technical indicator. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its many sibling tools that also fetch various financial indicators (like 'stoch', 'rsi', 'macd', etc.), leaving the agent to infer the difference based on the tool name alone.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 100+ sibling tools including similar indicators like 'stoch' (stochastic oscillator) and 'rsi' (relative strength index), the agent must guess based on the name 'stochrsi' that this combines both, but this isn't stated explicitly. No context, exclusions, or prerequisites are mentioned.

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