get_rsi

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about broker selection (active vs. specific) but does not disclose the return format, potential errors (e.g., no active broker), or whether it supports multiple data points. This is a moderate level of transparency.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Get RSI') and then adds essential context ('from active or specific broker in your session'). Every word earns its place; no redundancy or wasted detail.

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?

The description, combined with the schema, tells the agent what parameters to use and the broker context. However, there is no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., a single RSI value or a time series). Omitting return information creates an incomplete picture for a tool of moderate complexity.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that the broker parameter falls back to the active broker if not specified, a semantic detail not captured in the schema's description of 'Specific broker (optional)'. This helps the agent understand parameter behavior.

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 retrieves the RSI (Relative Strength Index) for a symbol, using a specific verb 'Get' and a distinct resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling technical indicator tools (e.g., get_macd, get_atr) by naming the exact 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 clear context: the RSI is fetched from either the active broker or a specific broker in the session. This implies the tool requires an established broker session and gives a hint about when to use it, though it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state 'use this when you need RSI'.

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