moomoo_quote

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Subscribe', implying a subscription mechanism or persistent state, but does not explain the nature of the subscription, whether it is one-shot or ongoing, or any side effects. It also does not disclose any rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens on repeated calls. The description is too vague on behavioral traits.

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 sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool. However, it is overly terse, omitting critical usage and behavioral details, so while it is concise, it under-delivers on content. Still, for conciseness itself, it earns a 4.

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 is simple (one parameter) and has an output schema that explains return values, the description covers the basic 'what'. However, it lacks any usage context, such as when to subscribe versus just take a snapshot, and does not explain the subscription lifecycle. This leaves a gap for an agent trying to decide correct usage but it is a minor gap for such a simple tool.

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 schema has zero description coverage for the 'codes' parameter, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'for each symbol' provides a minimal hint that codes are market symbols, but it does not specify expected format, valid ranges, or examples. The description adds only marginal meaning beyond the field name 'codes', which could be interpreted in many ways without the 'symbol' hint.

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 clear verb ('Subscribe and return') and a specific resource ('latest real-time quote for each symbol'). It clearly identifies the tool's function. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like moomoo_snapshot or moomoo_ticker, which could also return quote-like data, so it lacks explicit sibling distinction.

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 context, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent would have no indication of whether to prefer this over moomoo_snapshot or moomoo_ticker, making selection ambiguous.

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