moomoo_search_securities

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, but it only states the basic function. It does not mention that results are limited, how matches are ordered, whether authentication is needed, or what happens on invalid markets. No additional behavioral traits are disclosed beyond the bare search operation.

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, syntactically efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It contains no superfluous words and is appropriately brief for the limited information it conveys.

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, no annotations, and an output schema that does not compensate for the missing input descriptions, the overall context is incomplete. The agent lacks sufficient information to correctly construct queries, interpret parameter semantics, or understand tool-specific behaviors, so the description is not fully adequate for reliable invocation.

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 for documenting parameters. It adds value for the 'market' parameter by listing valid examples, but it says nothing about 'query' (what to search by), 'limit' (maximum number of results?), or 'security_type' (valid values, meaning). Most parameters remain unexplained, forcing the agent to guess.

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 clearly states the verb 'search' and the resource 'securities', with concrete examples of markets (US, HK, SH, SZ). It unambiguously distinguishes this tool from siblings like quote, candles, or ticker, which are all non-search operations.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of typical flow (e.g., search before fetching quotes), no exclusions, and no reference to sibling tools. The intended usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name.

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