call_paid_api

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that payment-required endpoints will error with payment details, that no wallet is configured, and that EntRoute verifies endpoints for valid 402 responses but does not guarantee quality. This provides good transparency beyond the basic function call.

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?

Description is well-structured with clear sections. It is concise with only necessary information. However, it could be slightly shorter by removing redundant phrasing like 'No wallet is configured' appearing twice.

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 complexity (5 parameters, nested objects) and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for basic use. It covers the discovery prerequisite and payment behavior. However, it does not explain what happens on successful calls (e.g., response structure) or error handling for non-402 errors.

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 100%, so the schema already defines parameters. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. It repeats the need for endpoint_id but does not explain formats or constraints like the method enum's relationship to the endpoint's supported methods.

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 that the tool calls a previously discovered API endpoint, specifying its purpose and distinguishing it from the sibling tool discover_paid_api, which is used for discovery. The verb 'call' and resource 'API endpoint' are specific.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to use this after discover_paid_api and to use the endpoint_id from discovery. It also explains that paid endpoints will return payment details without executing. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives beyond the sequential relationship.

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