get_endpoint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns details on authorization and idempotency (권한·멱등성), but does not clarify if the operation is read-only, how it handles missing operationId (though required), or any rate limits. The exposure of idempotency info hints at safety but lacks comprehensive behavioral details.

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 concise sentence listing clearly what details are returned. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Could be considered slightly dense due to the list of attributes, but overall efficient. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool has only one required parameter with full schema coverage, no output schema, and the description lists all major return categories, it provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke it correctly. The lone missing piece is a mention of the return format (e.g., JSON), but the example-driven description compensates well.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds the example value 'buyAsset, getPrices, getPriceHistory' for the operationId parameter, which is helpful but does not go beyond what the schema already provides (a string with description). No additional semantics beyond the parameter name and example.

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 explicitly states '단일 엔드포인트 상세' (single endpoint details) and lists the specific attributes returned: 설명, 파라미터, 요청 본문 스키마와 예제, 응답 상태, 권한·멱등성. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tool 'list_endpoints' which likely returns a list of endpoints rather than details for one.

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 use when needing details of a specific endpoint by operationId. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'list_endpoints' (which lists all endpoints) or mention when not to use this tool (e.g., if you only need error codes, use 'list_error_codes' instead). The usage context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative guidance.

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