get_endpoint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It thoroughly discloses the output format (markdown) and enumerates all included content: base URLs, authentication, parameters, request body schema, response schema, expanded $refs, and examples. It does not mention potential errors or rate limits, but for a read-only retrieval tool, the behavioral transparency is strong.

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 compact, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence states what the tool does and lists the contents; the second directs how to obtain the id. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the structure front-loads the core purpose.

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's simplicity (one parameter) and the absence of an output schema, the description fully covers the return value by listing exactly what the markdown includes. It also provides the prerequisite context about the id source. There are no significant gaps in understanding how to invoke the tool or what to expect.

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 schema already describes the id parameter with an example and format, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds marginal value by specifying the id comes from search_docs/list_endpoints, but this is more usage guidance than parameter semantics. With high schema coverage, 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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the full contract of a single Pancake REST API endpoint as markdown.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_docs and list_endpoints, which return listings, and get_webhook/get_guide, which target different resource types. The tool's unique function is 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 explicitly instructs 'Pass an id from search_docs or list_endpoints,' connecting the tool to its discovery workflow. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the guidance implies it should be used after obtaining an endpoint id, and sibling tool names provide context for alternatives. This is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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