calculate_rsi

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'latest value', implying a read-only calculation, but does not confirm whether it has side effects, the return format, or any constraints. The brevity fails to meet the transparency burden.

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 extremely concise (4 words) and front-loaded, but it omits critical details needed for correct usage. While brevity is positive, it sacrifices informativeness, making it under-specified for a tool with multiple parameters.

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 a technical indicator with three parameters and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks details on return format, interpretation, and usage context, leaving the agent with insufficient information for safe invocation.

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 coverage is 0% and the description adds no explanations for parameters like 'period' (e.g., number of periods for RSI calculation) or 'timeframe' (e.g., allowed values). The agent receives zero semantic value beyond parameter names and types.

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 states 'Wilder RSI (latest value)', which clearly identifies the tool as computing the Relative Strength Index using Wilder's method and returning the most recent value. This distinguishes it from sibling indicators like SMA or MACD, though it could be more explicit about the calculation goal.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus similar indicators (e.g., SMA, EMA, MACD) or alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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