get_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 does add context about the calculation method (Wilder smoothing) and the outputs (signal line, crossovers), but it does not explicitly state side-effect-free operation, data requirements, or response format. The description adds some transparency but leaves gaps.

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 two sentences, with the first sentence stating the core function and the second adding method and output details. It is front-loaded, concise, and every phrase adds value without redundancy.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description needs to provide substantial context. It covers the calculation method and key outputs, but it does not specify the return structure, required historical data, or how parameters like overbought/oversold shape the output. For a 6-parameter indicator, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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%, so all six parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds conceptual context around the signal line and crossover, which relates to signal_period, but it does not provide additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. 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 the tool calculates RSI for a stock, using a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes itself from sibling indicator tools by specifying Wilder's smoothing method and the additional outputs (overbought/oversold zones, signal line, crossover signals), making its purpose unambiguous and unique.

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. With many sibling indicator tools like get_stochastic and get_macd, there is no mention of scenarios favoring RSI or any exclusions. The usage context is only implied by the tool's name and basic purpose.

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