Optimizing API Gateway Strategies: Balancing Endpoint Granularity and Cost Considerations

In the evolving landscape of API architecture, selecting the right gateway solution requires careful consideration—not only of technical design but also of cost implications. Recently, I’ve been exploring various API gateway options and encountered a vendor that structures its pricing model around what they term “actions” or “endpoints.” This approach raises important questions about how to balance architectural clarity with cost efficiency.

Understanding the Context

Our current backend design adheres to sound principles: controllers such as WidgetsController contain actions like CreateWidget, GetWidgets, UpdateWidget, and DeleteWidget. Additionally, for specific business scenarios, we sometimes define tailored actions such as GetWidgetsForUseCase1 and GetWidgetsForUseCase2. These specialized actions help keep the codebase organized, aligning closely with specific use cases without duplicating core logic—since shared operations reside at the service layer.

The Challenge

The API gateway vendor recommends reducing the number of endpoints by consolidating multiple use-case-specific actions into a single, more versatile endpoint. They suggest leveraging parameters or flags to steer behavior internally and utilizing their tooling at the gateway level. While this could simplify the client interface in some instances, it raises concerns about potential trade-offs: Does this approach introduce unnecessary complexity? Could it obscure the clarity of individual endpoints? And importantly, how does it impact pricing—if costs rise with each configured action, does consolidation genuinely offer savings?

Future Considerations

Adding to the complexity, there’s ongoing discussion within our team about expanding our API by introducing new actions that return significantly different payloads based on specific requests. This raises questions about the optimal boundary between route design and internal logic, and whether consolidating endpoints might complicate future scalability and maintainability.

Key Questions

Given these factors, I am eager to hear insights from experienced API architects and developers:

• Are there tangible architectural or performance advantages to merging several narrowly focused actions into a single, more adaptable endpoint?

• Or is it generally wiser to maintain a more granular approach, keeping endpoints distinct for clarity, maintainability, and scalability—even if that results in more endpoints?

• How should pricing models influence API design decisions, especially when costs are tied to the number of actions or endpoints?

Your Perspectives

If you’ve navigated similar challenges—particularly when dealing with cost-sensitive API gateways or designing extensive, modular APIs—I would appreciate your advice. Sharing your experiences about striking the right balance between endpoint granularity and