moomoo_connection_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly conveys that the tool performs a reachability check, which implies a read-only network probe with no side effects. It does not overpromise or hide destructive behavior, and for a zero-parameter status tool this is sufficient 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, clear sentence that front-loads the action and object. Every word earns its place, and there is no superfluous or redundant content.

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 that the tool has no parameters, an output schema exists to describe return values, and the purpose is simple and clearly stated, the description is complete for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly. No additional context is necessary.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no schema information to compensate for. The description correctly focuses on the tool's action rather than parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate because parameter semantics are not a concern here.

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 ('Check') and resource ('configured Futu OpenD endpoint') and clearly indicates the purpose is connectivity/reachability. This distinguishes it from sibling data-retrieval tools like moomoo_quote or moomoo_candles, which focus on market data instead of connection status.

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 implies this is a health-check tool to confirm the OpenD endpoint is reachable, which suggests using it before market data calls. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or when to use alternatives, so the guidance is only implicit.

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