Extract pages from a PDF by 1-based ranges (e.g. 1-3,7) into a new PDF. Deterministic, $0.002.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| pages | Yes | ||
| x_payment | No | Optional: base64 X-PAYMENT header value (x402 exact scheme, USDC on Base mainnet). Omit it to receive the payment requirements (accepts[] + docs) for this call without being charged. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It adds useful context: the operation is deterministic and costs $0.002, and it outputs a new PDF (implying the original is unchanged). However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as input size limits, error handling, or any authentication requirements, which would be expected for a paid tool.
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, information-dense sentence that defines the operation, range syntax, output, determinism, and cost. Every word adds value, with no filler or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 is a simple extraction utility with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose but omits details about the return value (the new PDF), edge cases (invalid ranges), or any behavior beyond a basic successful extraction. For a paid tool, this is a moderate gap but not severe given the simplicity.
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 only describes the optional x_payment parameter; url and pages have no descriptions (33% coverage). The description clarifies the pages format with the range example, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not explain what url should contain (presumably a PDF URL), leaving a semantic gap for that parameter.
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 action ('Extract pages from a PDF') and specifies the range format (1-based ranges like 1-3,7), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like pdf_merge or pdf_info. This gives a specific verb+resource+scope.
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 when to use the tool (for extracting pages from a PDF) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives like pdf_merge for merging. The use case is clear from the wording, but no exclusions or sibling comparisons are provided.
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.
Multiple tools have unclear boundaries: document_pipeline and parse_document both parse PDFs, portrait_analysis and style_profile both perform color analysis, enrich_company and jp_company_profile both resolve company profiles, and jp_payroll_suite bundles capabilities that already exist as separate tools. Descriptions are detailed, but an agent must carefully compare several near-synonyms before selecting.
All names are snake_case, but the conventions are mixed: get_* for metadata, jp_* for Japan-specific calculations, pdf_* for PDF operations, plus standalone nouns like meal_vision and style_profile. The prefixes help readability, but there is no uniform verb_noun pattern and ordering is inconsistent (quote_parse vs parse_document).
35 tools is far above the well-scoped 3-15 range and indicates an aggregator/marketplace rather than a focused server. Even with clear individual descriptions, the sheer breadth across OCR, PDF, Japan tax, style, and marketplace functions makes the tool set feel heavy and harder to navigate.
Within its broad marketplace scope, the server is fairly complete: paid products have free samples (get_sample), quotes (quote_parse), receipt retrieval (get_receipt), and discovery via get_catalog and search_x402_services. PDF and Japan tax coverage are extensive, though the wide domain spread means no single area feels fully exhaustive.