signal_bb_rsi

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only mentions 'breakout signal' and data requirements, but does not describe what the output represents (e.g., bullish/bearish, numerical signals), how the combination works, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no output schema.

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 very short (two sentences) and directly states the purpose and a critical data requirement. It is front-loaded, but could be more structured for clarity.

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 fails to explain what the signal returns (e.g., binary, magnitude). It only mentions a data requirement, leaving a significant gap in understanding the tool's output.

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?

All four parameters are described in the schema with 100% coverage. The description adds the data requirement relationship but does not add new semantic context beyond the schema, such as interpretation of deviationMultiplier or rsiInterval. 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 is a 'Bollinger Bands + RSI breakout signal' (布林带 + RSI 突破信号), using specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling indicators like signal_ema_cross or indicator_bbands by combining both indicators for a breakout logic.

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 includes a data requirement ('needs at least max(interval, rsiInterval)+1 data points') which gives some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other signal tools (e.g., signal_macd_rsi, signal_ma_cross) or what market conditions are suitable.

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