get_technical_indicator_rsi

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does ('Get RSI') without adding any behavioral context such as data sources, rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the output looks like. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage, making it hard for an agent to predict behavior beyond the basic action.

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, efficient sentence: 'Get Relative Strength Index (RSI) technical indicator.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for a straightforward tool. Every part of the sentence earns its place by clearly stating the action and resource.

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 financial data tools and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like data freshness, error cases, or output format, which are crucial for an agent to use the tool effectively. The description alone is insufficient for a tool with no structured support beyond the input schema.

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 has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for each parameter (symbol, timeframe, period). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain parameter interactions, default values, or usage examples. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting without extra value from the description.

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's purpose: 'Get Relative Strength Index (RSI) technical indicator.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and the resource ('Relative Strength Index (RSI) technical indicator'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tools like 'get_technical_indicator_ema' or 'get_technical_indicator_sma' beyond naming the specific indicator.

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 this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when RSI is appropriate compared to other technical indicators (e.g., EMA, SMA) or other financial data tools in the sibling list. There's no context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.

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