call_api

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that authentication, headers, and Input_0 envelope are auto-processed, and that trading APIs are gated by a server mode flag. This is valuable context, but it does not describe return formats, error behavior, rate limits, or side effects, leaving gaps for 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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the main purpose, then provide essential procedural and conditional details. Every clause earns its place, with no wasted words or repetition.

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?

For a generic API caller with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core call mechanics and the trading-mode restriction. However, it omits guidance on return value handling, error scenarios, or how to obtain a valid operationId (e.g., via list_apis). Given the tool's broad scope and complexity, this is adequate but not complete.

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%, with clear descriptions for operationId, input, and cts. The description adds critical semantics by explaining that the 'Input_0 envelope is auto-handled', saving the user from manually constructing it, and clarifies that 'input' is the payload for that envelope. This goes beyond the schema's descriptive text.

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 verb and resource: it 'actually calls' the NH Open API using an operationId and input value. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_stock_price and get_stock_balance because it is a generic caller, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself or mention alternatives.

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 implies when to use the tool: to execute any NH Open API operation. It provides a clear constraint for trading APIs (only when NHPLUG_ENABLE_TRADING=true) and notes that authentication/headers/envelope are handled automatically. However, it does not explicitly say when to use it instead of the sibling convenience tools or how to discover operationIds.

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