execute_api_call

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool returns raw, unfiltered responses and lists example parameters and response fields (fee breakdowns, route objects, etc.). While it omits details on authentication, rate limits, or error handling, it adequately describes the tool's behavior as a generic API caller.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidelines and concrete examples. While it is somewhat lengthy, every sentence adds value—explaining when to use the tool, how to prepare, and what to expect. No redundant phrases, but it could be slightly more concise.

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 (generic API caller with 4 parameters, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains the tool's role relative to siblings, provides examples of endpoints and parameters, and describes the response as 'raw, unfiltered' without needing to detail every possible output. No apparent gaps.

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%, but the description adds context beyond the schema. For the 'body' parameter, it says 'Pass the full JSON object as documented in the API schema,' and for 'params,' it specifies 'key-value string pairs.' It also provides concrete examples like '/quote/v2' for path, which clarifies usage beyond the schema descriptions.

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's purpose: calling any public Relay API endpoint and returning raw, unfiltered responses. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting that dedicated tools are for common operations, while this one provides access to full parameters and response fields those tools don't expose.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool (for endpoints or parameters not covered by dedicated tools) and when not to (for common operations like simple quotes). It also advises first using get_api_schema to discover endpoints and schemas, providing clear context for appropriate usage.

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