indicator_rsi

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals the data length requirement ('需要至少 interval 个数据点'), which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention the output range (typically 0-100), handling of insufficient data, or whether it returns an array or single value. The minimal disclosure is partially helpful but insufficient for complete transparency.

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 sentence consisting of two short clauses, making it very concise. It front-loads the indicator name and immediately follows with the critical data requirement. While it could benefit from a slightly more structured format (e.g., separate usage note), it avoids any unnecessary words.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns. It does not mention return values, typical range, or behavior with insufficient data. With many sibling indicators, more context (e.g., 'Use for identifying overbought/oversold conditions') would improve completeness. The description only covers a basic constraint, leaving significant gaps.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for 'values' (价格数组) and 'interval' (计算周期). The description adds the constraint that the values array must have at least 'interval' data points, which is not explicitly stated in the schema (schema only requires minItems=1 for values). This additional constraint enhances understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 explicitly states '相对强弱指数 (RSI)' which translates to Relative Strength Index, clearly identifying the indicator. It also notes the data requirement, distinguishing it from other indicators by specifying its calculation. However, it does not elaborate on what RSI measures or its typical use case.

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 provides no guidance on when to use RSI versus the many sibling indicator tools (e.g., indicator_stoch, indicator_macd). There is no mention of typical contexts (e.g., overbought/oversold detection) or when not to use it. The only hint is that it requires at least 'interval' data points, which is more of a precondition than usage advice.

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