moomoo_ticker

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions 'real-time' but does not state read-only nature, rate limits, or any other side effects. For a data-retrieval tool, this is minimal and does not alert the agent to any limitations or requirements.

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, which is concise, but it is not front-loaded with critical information (like parameter semantics or usage context). It is appropriately short but lacks structure and specified content, so it earns a mid-range score.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value details are not required, but the description still fails to explain the count parameter, any limitations, or usage scenarios. The tool is simple, yet the description leaves significant gaps that an agent would need to resolve before calling it.

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 description does not clarify either parameter. The code parameter is implied by 'one symbol' but not explicitly tied to the property name, and the count parameter is entirely omitted. This forces the agent to guess at the meaning and usage of count.

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 ('Return') and resource ('recent real-time time-and-sales records for one symbol'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like snapshots or quotes. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from specific siblings, so it scores a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as moomoo_quote or moomoo_candles. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context, which is not provided.

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