identi_card_image3Verify the authenticity of a Korean passport from an image or PDF file. 여권 인적사항면 이미지 또는 PDF 파일을 업로드하면 기재 정보를 자동 인식해 진위 여부를 확인합니다. 텍스트 입력 없이 파일 하나만 전달하면 됩니다. 정보주체의 동의 등 적법한 처리 근거를 확보한 경우에만 사용하십시오. [호출당 60포인트]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| image_url | Yes | 다운로드 가능한 https URL (허용 형식: image/jpeg, image/png, application/pdf) (최대 50MB) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description doesn't need to cover side effects. It adds valuable context beyond annotations: per-call cost (60 points) and a legal compliance note. It doesn't describe the internal verification process, but that's not essential given the read-only nature.
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 and front-loaded with purpose. Sentences are efficient: purpose, supported formats, input simplicity, legal caution, and cost. No fluff or repetition, though it could be slightly more streamlined by merging some bilingual phrasing.
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?
For a single-parameter read-only verification tool with annotations, this is fairly complete. However, it lacks any mention of the output/return format or success/failure indication. Since there's no output schema, the description should at least hint at what the agent should expect back. That's a notable gap.
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 fully documents the single parameter (image_url) with format and size constraints, so the description doesn't need to add much. It does mention accepting image or PDF files, which aligns with the schema, but adds no new details beyond that. Baseline 3 for 100% schema coverage 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 clearly states the verb ('verify') and the resource ('authenticity of a Korean passport'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like identi_card1-5 (likely other ID checks) and identity_document_passport (which may be a different method). The title also clarifies this is image/PDF-based, so an agent can select it correctly.
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?
It provides explicit usage context: requires no text input, just one file, and mandates lawful processing grounds (consent). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or say when NOT to use, but the legal precondition and input requirement are clear enough for most cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes; even within families like identi_card1-5 vs identi_card_image1-5, the text-input vs image-input distinction is clear. However, the sheer number of tools and some near-synonyms (e.g., ocr_identi1 vs identi_card_image1) could cause occasional misselection, but descriptions mitigate this.
Naming follows a loose verb-first pattern (check_, crawl_, download_, draw_, etc.) but includes significant deviations: bare nouns (bank_code, location, whois), numbered variants (identi_card1, identi_card_image1), and mixed prefixes (ocr_, identity_, etc.). The inconsistency is noticeable but still readable and predictable within functional clusters.
80 tools is far above the typical 3-15, but the server is a broad API aggregator covering many independent domains (banking, ID verification, media conversion, search, LLM, etc.), so the high count is somewhat justified. Still, the sheer number makes the toolkit feel unwieldy and hard to navigate, placing it at the high end of acceptable.
Within its stated purpose as a general-purpose utility API, the toolset covers a wide array of common task families: identity document verification (text and image), OCR field extraction, media conversion, web/search, domain/IP lookup, and LLM chat. Most operations have both get and act variants (e.g., set/get watermark, parcel_tracking/auto), with few obvious dead ends for typical use cases.