getRSI

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. Description adds that it calculates RSI based on historical price data, but does not elaborate on data freshness, rate limits, or authentication aspects. Adequate given annotation coverage, but adds minimal extra value.

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 concise sentences that front-load the essential information: what the tool does, the API used, and its purpose. No superfluous words or repetition. Every sentence earns 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?

Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and numerous sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not describe the return structure (e.g., array of date-RSI pairs), limitations, or how the output can be used. The agent lacks critical information to effectively invoke and utilize the tool.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter clearly described (symbol, periodLength, timeframe, from_date, to). Description does not add further meaning, such as typical values for periodLength (e.g., 14) or date format details. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since schema already does the heavy lifting.

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?

Clearly states the tool calculates RSI for a stock, using the FMP API, and explains its purpose for momentum analysis and overbought/oversold conditions. Name and description are specific to RSI, distinguishing it from generic indicator tools, but lacks explicit differentiation from similar indicators like SMA or EMA.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases (e.g., identifying overbought/oversold), or when to choose RSI over other momentum indicators. The agent receives no context for decision-making.

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