get_technical_indicator_rsi

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only says 'Get', which implies a read operation, but does not disclose return format (single value vs series), data frequency, or any limitations. This is a significant gap for a tool with no structured transparency annotations.

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 concise sentence with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded with the tool's name and core purpose, meeting the standard of every sentence earning its place.

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?

With no output schema and a minimal description, the tool lacks enough context for an agent to know what the output will look like or how the optional period parameter affects results. The tool is not complex, but the description is too thin to be fully complete for autonomous 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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters—it does not explain period defaults or how timeframe affects results. All semantic weight falls on the schema, which is already sufficient, but the description does not enhance it.

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 the verb 'Get' and specific resource 'Relative Strength Index (RSI) technical indicator', distinguishing it from sibling tools like SMA and EMA. It is precise and unambiguous about what the tool does.

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 implies usage for retrieving RSI but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over other indicators or any exclusions. It names the specific indicator but does not contrast with alternatives, leaving usage somewhat implied.

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