Check your Auto-Reader OCR key: tier, remaining daily free credits, prepaid credit balance, subscription allowance, and per-minute rate limit. Use it to throttle yourself before hitting a limit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | No | Optional key (nsk_live_...). Auto-provisioned if omitted. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It describes the returned data but does not explicitly confirm read-only nature, side effects, or whether calling this tool itself consumes resources or has rate limits.
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, no redundancy. First sentence lists what is checked, second provides actionable guidance. Every phrase serves a 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?
The description covers the output items in detail despite no output schema. It lacks mention of error handling or how to obtain a key if not provided, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a usage check tool given the sibling context.
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 coverage is 100%, with a single parameter already documented in the schema. The description adds the detail 'Optional key (nsk_live_...). Auto-provisioned if omitted,' which is useful but not significantly beyond the schema's description.
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 it checks Auto-Reader OCR key usage details, including tier, credits, balance, allowance, and rate limit. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like create_api_key or extract_document, which serve different purposes.
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 advises using it to throttle before hitting a limit, which is a clear use case. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but siblings are sufficiently different, making the intended context obvious.
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.
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: key provisioning, structured extraction, usage checking, combined OCR+translation, plain OCR, and translation. No overlap that would confuse an agent.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., create_api_key, ocr_image, translate_text). Even the compound name 'ocr_and_translate' fits the pattern.
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for an OCR service, covering key management, usage monitoring, multiple OCR modes, structured extraction, and translation without being over-fragmented.
The tool set covers core OCR workflows well, but lacks a tool for revoking API keys or listing existing keys, which is a minor gap for full lifecycle management.
