indicator_bb_rsi

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns continuous numeric values instead of hardcoded three-state signals, which is a behavioral trait. It lists output components but does not specify output format (e.g., single object vs. array) or address edge cases. Overall, good transparency with minor gaps.

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, focused sentence in Chinese that front-loads the purpose and lists outputs. No unnecessary words or repetition. It is efficiently structured for quick understanding.

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 of combining two indicators and no output schema, the description lacks specification of the return format (e.g., object fields), data length requirements, or error handling. It provides useful context but is not fully complete for a tool with multiple outputs.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value by explaining the combined output but does not provide per-parameter details beyond what is in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it combines BBands and RSI, returning full BBands data, RSI, and price position within bands. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like indicator_bbands and indicator_rsi by specifying the combined output and the provision of continuous numeric values instead of hardcoded signals.

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 it is for combined analysis, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over using separate indicators or the _direct variant. No usage scenarios or exclusions are provided, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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