get_apiOverview of one marketplace API by slug: what it does, its endpoint list, plans and links (docs, OpenAPI, dedicated MCP server).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The API's marketplace slug, e.g. from search_apis. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the content of the overview (endpoint list, plans, links), but does not mention whether the operation is read-only or any other behavioral details. Overall, it provides moderate transparency but could be more explicit about side effects or resource access.
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 concise and front-loaded: it states the purpose and key contents in one sentence. It is efficient, with no wasted words. Could be slightly more structured, but it's well done.
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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what it returns (overview, endpoint list, plans, links). It doesn't mention return format or pagination, but given the simplicity tear, it's fairly 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% for the single parameter 'slug', and the schema description already explains it as 'The API's marketplace slug, e.g. from search_apis.' The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond that, so it meets the baseline of 3.
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 purpose: 'Overview of one marketplace API by slug' and specifies what the overview contains (what it does, endpoint list, plans, links). This distinguishes it from siblings like search_apis (for searching) and get_endpoint (for a specific endpoint).
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 usage by stating 'by slug' and gives an example ('e.g. from search_apis'), indicating a typical workflow where a slug is obtained from a search. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clear, non-overlapping purpose: one searches for APIs, two provide metadata (overview vs. endpoint docs), and one executes calls. The distinction between get_api and get_endpoint is well defined by scope (API-level vs endpoint-level).
The naming follows a consistent verb_noun pattern (call_endpoint, get_api, get_endpoint, search_apis) with only minor deviation: 'search' instead of 'get' for the search tool, which is conventional. The pattern is clear and predictable.
With only 4 tools, the set is tightly scoped to the marketplace's purpose: discovering, documenting, and executing APIs. Each tool is essential for the core workflow, and 4 is a reasonable number for this domain.
The surface covers the main lifecycle: search to find, get_api to understand, get_endpoint for details, call_endpoint to execute. Missing features like authentication management or plan/subscription management are external to the core usage, so this is a minor gap.