get_endpoint_spec

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

Discloses key behaviors: free ('FREE — no wallet needed'), source ('straight from the live OpenAPI discovery doc'), and content (price, schema, examples). It doesn't cover error handling or what happens if the route doesn't exist, but for a read-only spec tool, this is sufficient. No annotations provided, so description carries the burden; it does so reasonably.

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 primary purpose. Every sentence provides valuable information: first describes outputs, second gives usage instructions and context. No redundant or filler content.

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?

Despite no output schema or annotations, the description completely covers what the tool does, how to use it, and why it's useful. It explains the 'free' aspect, the route path requirement, and that it returns examples and schema. For a single-parameter tool, this is fully sufficient guidance.

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 already covers the parameter with description and examples (100% coverage), giving a baseline of 3. The description adds extra value by specifying the leading slash is optional ('with or without a leading slash') and reiterates examples, clarifying the expected input format beyond the 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 specifies exactly what the tool does: 'Full call spec for one route: price, input JSON schema, a worked request example, and a worked response example'. It clearly differentiates from siblings by indicating it's a preparation step before call_endpoint and distinct from listing/searching capabilities.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use before call_endpoint: 'Use this before call_endpoint to know exactly what body to send.' Also clarifies that no wallet is needed, establishing when it's appropriate. The path format guidance ('with or without a leading slash') provides clear usage details.

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