list_apis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a significant behavioral trait: order/trading APIs are only listed when the server is in trading activation mode. It also implies the tool returns operationIds. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether filters are case-sensitive/partial, leaving some gaps. Still, the disclosure of conditional visibility adds meaningful transparency beyond a trivial read 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 three sentences: purpose, filtering capability, and workflow guidance plus a special condition. It is front-loaded with the main action, every sentence carries distinct information, and there is no filler. The structure efficiently communicates purpose, usage, and a key behavioral caveat without redundancy.

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's moderate complexity (3 optional filters, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose, workflow role, and a special display condition. It does not describe the return format (e.g., whether results are paginated or include full API metadata), but it implies the availability of operationIds, which is sufficient for the intended discovery usage. Slight incompleteness in return structure details keeps it from a 5.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates that filtering by domain/category/keyword is possible, but does not add new syntax details beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions. It reiterates the parameter names in Korean (자산군, 카테고리, 키워드) but offers no additional examples or edge-case semantics, so it adds marginal value over the schema.

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 tool 'queries the list of endpoints' for the NH Investment & Securities Open API, with a specific verb (조회합니다) and resource (endpoint list). It differentiates itself from sibling tools by explicitly describing its role as the discovery step, distinct from describe_api/call_api and the specific data tools like get_stock_price.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'First use this tool to find the operationId of the desired API, then proceed to describe_api / call_api.' This directly addresses workflow sequencing relative to siblings. It also explains filtering options (domain, category, keyword) and a special condition (order APIs only shown in trading activation mode), covering both usage and exclusions.

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