getRSI

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that data comes from the FMP RSI API over historical prices, which is mild context; it says nothing about the required lookback window, latency, rate limits, or what the series output contains.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core verb and resource; nothing is buried. The second sentence leans slightly toward promotional framing ("helps users analyze...") rather than actionable detail, but it is not wasted space.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description never indicates what the return looks like (a time series of RSI values with dates), nor the conventional default for periodLength. With full schema coverage and annotations, this is adequate but leaves the agent guessing about the response shape.

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 symbol, from_date, to, timeframe, and periodLength are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning at all, so the baseline 3 applies rather than a higher score.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Calculate the Relative Strength Index (RSI) for a stock") and names the backing API, so the agent knows exactly what computation happens. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the many indicator siblings (getSMA, getEMA, getADX, getWilliams) beyond the indicator name itself.

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 second sentence implies the analytic use case (momentum, overbought/oversold conditions), which gives the agent a reason to pick this tool. But there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternative indicators, no mention of when RSI is inappropriate, and no prerequisites such as sufficient historical window length.

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