moomoo_candles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits, but it only says 'Return current candles.' It does not state whether the operation is read-only, how many candles are returned by default, whether errors occur for invalid codes, or any rate limits. The phrase 'current' also leaves it unclear if this returns the latest candle only or a historical series ending at the present.

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 exceptionally short, consisting of two sentences. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence provides a practical example for the ktype parameter. It is concise and free of fluff, though the brevity sacrifices essential 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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, an output schema, and several sibling tools, this description is incomplete. The output schema covers return values, but parameter semantics are under-revealed, and there is no guidance on context or common use cases. An agent would need to infer the meaning of code, count, and autype from defaults and examples elsewhere.

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 0% and the input schema only provides titles and defaults, so the description must explain the parameters. It adds value only for ktype by giving examples (K_1M, K_5M, K_DAY), but it says nothing about code, count, or autype. These three parameters remain unexplained, and the description does not compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Return current candles.' This clearly identifies the tool's primary function and sets it apart from siblings like moomoo_snapshot, moomoo_quote, and moomoo_order_book, which cover different market data. However, it does not elaborate on what constitutes a candle or how this relates to the other moomoo data tools, leaving some ambiguity.

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. It does not mention any trade-offs, such as when to use moomoo_snapshot or moomoo_quote instead, nor does it state any prerequisites or context. The only hint is the ktype examples, but these are parameter examples rather than usage guidance.

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