get-endpointGets detailed information about a specific API endpoint, including security schemes and servers
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | The API endpoint path (e.g. /api/v1/users). | |
| method | Yes | The HTTP method (e.g. GET, POST, PUT, DELETE). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint: true and openWorldHint: false, so the safety profile is already known. The description adds that the details include 'security schemes and servers', which is helpful return-content context, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits like permissions, error handling, or side effects. With annotations covering the core safety aspect, this is adequate but not rich.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and key return elements. No unnecessary words, and every part is informative. This is a model of conciseness.
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 read-only tool with two well-described parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context: it names the resource type (endpoint), the action (get details), and specific scopes (security schemes and servers). Combined with annotations for safety and schema for parameters, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly, though return format is not detailed.
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?
The input schema provides full descriptions for both 'path' and 'method' (100% coverage). The tool description does not add any further meaning to the parameters, but the schema already does the heavy lifting, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 function: 'Gets detailed information about a specific API endpoint'. The verb 'Gets' indicates a read operation, and the resource is precisely the endpoint details. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list-endpoints (which lists endpoints) and search-endpoints (which searches), making the purpose unambiguous.
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 the tool should be used when detailed information about a specific endpoint is needed, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, so guidance is limited to contextual inference.
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 clearly distinct role: list-endpoints enumerates all paths, search-endpoints finds specific ones, get-endpoint retrieves details, execute-request makes actual API calls, and pay-with-x402 handles payment. There is no real overlap between these actions.
Most tool names follow a consistent lowercase verb-first hyphenated pattern (execute-, get-, list-, search-). pay-with-x402 is a minor deviation with a phrasal verb, but it still maintains the overall verb-led style.
Five tools is an appropriate count for a focused API client server. Each tool serves a distinct purpose in the discovery-to-execution workflow, earning its place without excess or deficiency.
The tool set covers the complete workflow: discovering endpoints, getting endpoint details, managing access via payment, and executing requests. This allows agents to fully explore and call any Vybe API endpoint with no obvious dead ends.