Retrieve GDEX API endpoint details—URL, HTTP method, parameters, and response format—by providing an endpoint name or keyword.
Get GDEX API endpoint details — URL, method, parameters, and response format.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| endpoint | Yes | Endpoint name or keyword (e.g., "buy_token", "hl_create_order", "deposit", "portfolio") |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.11.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the return contents (URL, method, params, response format), but says nothing about read-only safety, authentication requirements, or rate limits. 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?
A single front-loaded sentence that states the resource and its return payload with zero filler. Every clause 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?
There is no output schema, but the description explicitly names the return fields (URL, method, parameters, response format), which largely compensates. For a one-parameter lookup tool this is close to complete; only auth and rate-limit context are missing.
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% and the single 'endpoint' parameter is documented with concrete examples in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or matching guidance beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (Get) and resource (GDEX API endpoint details) and enumerates exactly what is returned: URL, method, parameters, response format. An agent can distinguish it from data-fetching siblings, though it does not explicitly name related tools like search_gdex_docs or get_sdk_pattern.
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 purpose implies usage (look up the contract for a named endpoint), but the description offers no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing against sibling documentation/SDK tools. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.