moex_security

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds content scope (fields returned and boards/is_primary), but does not disclose pagination, rate limits, error behavior, or response format, so it only partially extends beyond the annotations.

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?

One compact sentence plus a short input clause. The security-card fields are front-loaded before the trading-modes detail, and every element serves a purpose.

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?

For a read-only, open-world lookup with no output schema and five parameters, the description identifies the returned entity and its trading modes and clarifies the accepted identifier types. It omits CSV output behavior, but that is already covered by the schema's save_csv, filename, and max_inline_rows descriptions.

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 80%, with columns, filename, save_csv, and max_inline_rows documented in the schema. The description adds meaningful semantics for the required secid parameter by stating it accepts either SECID or ISIN, which the schema does not say.

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?

States a specific resource and what it returns: the security card (with ISIN, nominal, issue/maturity dates, coupon, bond type, listing level) and its trading modes (boards, is_primary). It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like moex_quote or moex_bondization, so it falls short of a 5.

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 explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative routing is provided. The input note 'Принимает SECID или ISIN' describes accepted keys but does not say when this tool should be chosen over moex_quote, moex_search, or moex_bondization.

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