screener_rsi_overbought

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the tool filters by RSI threshold and implies a read-only screening operation, but it does not state the return format, whether results are sorted, or that the operation is safe. This is adequate for a simple screener but leaves gaps in output expectations.

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, front-loaded sentence with 10 words. It uses an active verb and gives the core idea immediately. No filler, redundancy, or irrelevant information. This is an ideal length for a straightforward screener.

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 tool's simplicity and the well-documented schema, the description is mostly sufficient, but it falls short because there is no output schema to explain return values. It does not mention what the results contain (e.g., symbols only, RSI values, exchange info) or how the limit parameter affects output. The addition of one or two sentences about the result payload would round it out.

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, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds minimal parameter-level meaning beyond referencing the threshold concept ('RSI above a threshold'), which maps to minRsi. It does not explain interactions between parameters like exchange, timeframe, and quoteAsset, but the schema already documents these adequately.

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 function with a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('cryptocurrencies with RSI above a threshold'), and adds interpretive context ('potentially overbought'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling screener_rsi_oversold and indicator tools like indicator_rsi, which compute rather than screen.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as screener_rsi_oversold, screener_top_gainers, or indicator_rsi. While the purpose implies usage, there is no stated context, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer suitability.

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