indicator_rsi

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

The description covers basic behavioral traits: range and interpretation. No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It does not mention output format (single value or series), handling of insufficient data, or any side effects. Minimal but sufficient for a simple indicator.

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?

Extremely concise: one sentence covering name, range, thresholds, and typical period. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with key information.

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?

Adequate for a simple indicator: defines purpose, range, and typical period. Lacks output format specification and differentiation from direct sibling, but given no output schema and low complexity, it is minimally complete.

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?

Both parameters have schema descriptions. The tool description adds a typical usage note ('通常使用 14 周期'), suggesting a default for interval. This adds value beyond the schema by providing a common practice recommendation.

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 tool calculates RSI, defines value range (0-100), overbought/oversold thresholds (>70, <30), and typical period (14). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling indicator_rsi_direct, which may have different behavior (e.g., direct calculation vs. smoothed).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description implies it is for RSI calculation, but does not mention when to use the direct version or other indicators. Usage is implied but not clearly defined.

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