indicator_rsi_direct

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions fetching K-lines and computing RSI but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or side effects. The tool is likely read-only, but this is not stated.

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 concise sentence in Chinese. It is understandable but could benefit from better structure (e.g., separating purpose from usage). No wasted words, but slightly too brief.

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?

The tool has no output schema, yet the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., RSI values, additional metadata). For a computation tool, this is a notable gap. The description is incomplete for full context.

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% with basic descriptions for each parameter. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema says, such as how klineLimit or period affects the calculation. 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 that the tool computes RSI directly from Binance K-lines, saving steps. It distinguishes from the likely multi-step alternative (indicator_rsi). However, it does not explicitly state the output, which slightly reduces clarity.

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 when to use this tool (when you want RSI directly without separate steps) but does not explicitly specify when not to use it or name alternatives like indicator_rsi. Usage context is inferred rather than stated.

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