call_api

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses automatic processing of auth/headers/envelope and the trading mode condition for orders. However, it does not specify whether calls are read-only or write, rate limits, error handling, or idempotency, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by a critical condition. No wasted words. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description does not explain what the return value is (e.g., raw API response) or error handling. While it covers authentication and a key condition, it omits pagination (cts parameter) and response format, leaving the agent underinformed for a generic API caller.

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% and each parameter has a description. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, referencing operationId and input only in passing and omitting cts entirely. Thus it meets the baseline for high-coverage 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 that the tool calls the NH Open API with operationId and input, automatically handling authentication, headers, and envelope. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being the actual execution tool, while siblings like describe_api or list_apis provide metadata.

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 provides a conditional guideline for order APIs requiring trading mode, but does not explicitly advise when to use this tool vs its siblings (e.g., to first get operationId from describe_api or list_apis). The context for using alternatives is implied but not stated.

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