moomoo_order_book

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 states the data is 'real-time' and a 'bid/ask order book', which implies a read-only snapshot, but it doesn't disclose rate limits, data availability constraints, or whether depth is capped beyond the schema default. It also doesn't describe the output shape despite an output schema existing. The description provides basic behavioral context but leaves important operational details undisclosed.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core function (return order book) and the key scope ('for one symbol'). Every word earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy. It is optimally sized for a simple two-parameter tool.

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 tool has an output schema and only two parameters, one optional, so complexity is low. The description covers the basic purpose and points to real-time data. However, given the 0% schema description coverage and no annotations, it should at least mention the 'code' format and 'depth' meaning to be complete. It also doesn't hint at whether this is for US stocks, options, or other asset classes, which matters on moomoo platform given likely regional/asset support. Adequate for a minimal tool but with clear gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining what the parameters mean and how they relate. The description mentions 'one symbol' but doesn't explicitly explain that 'code' is the symbol identifier (e.g., 'AAPL') nor that 'depth' controls the number of bid/ask levels to return. With 0% coverage in the schema and no param-level detail in the description, the agent must guess at symbol format and depth interpretation. This is a significant gap.

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 ('Return') and resource ('the real-time bid/ask order book for one symbol'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like moomoo_quote and moomoo_snapshot that return different data types. It doesn't explicitly name sibling differentiators, but the resource and data specificity are sufficient to identify the tool's core function.

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 usage context: it is for retrieving a single symbol's order book, which is distinct from market-wide or historical data. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over moomoo_snapshot or moomoo_quote, nor does it mention any limitations like exchange coverage or subscription requirements. The implied context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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