Skip to main content
Glama

Synthex Forge — x402 Paid Agent Services

by com.synthexforge.x402
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Extract Invoice Text

extract_invoice_text
Read-onlyIdempotent

Invoice Ocr. use it rather than extract_invoice_fields for invoice text, not invoice fields; an object with 6 fields including amount, currency. $0.02 USDC.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fileYesThe file this operation operates on. See the schema for its type and whether it is required.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateNoThe `date` field of the response.
amountNoThe `amount` field of the response.
vendorNoThe `vendor` field of the response.
currencyNoThe `currency` field of the response.
invoice_idNoThe `invoice_id` field of the response.
line_itemsNoThe `line_items` field of the response.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed7 schema fields changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / amount
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The `amount` field of the response.",
+  "type": "object"
+}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / currency
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The `currency` field of the response.",
+  "type": "object"
+}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / date
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The `date` field of the response.",
+  "type": "object"
+}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / invoice_id
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The `invoice_id` field of the response.",
+  "type": "object"
+}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / line_items
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The `line_items` field of the response.",
+  "type": "object"
+}
    • removedOutput schema / properties / status
      Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / vendor
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The `vendor` field of the response.",
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful context beyond those annotations by stating the cost ($0.02 USDC) and describing the output object's shape, though the mention of 'amount, currency' fields slightly blurs the line between text extraction and field extraction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loads the key distinction from `extract_invoice_fields`. The semicolon-linked output-shape clause is slightly awkward and could be clearer, but there is little wasted text.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With a full output schema and safety annotations already present, the description only needs to cover purpose, routing, and notable behavior like cost. It does that, though the output-shape sentence is somewhat ambiguous for a tool described as extracting invoice text.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single `file` parameter, so the schema already documents the input. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, which is acceptable at this coverage level but not exceptional.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies the tool as invoice OCR and explicitly distinguishes it from `extract_invoice_fields` by saying it is for invoice text, not invoice fields. The phrasing 'Invoice Ocr.' is terse rather than a full verb-resource statement, but the sibling contrast makes the purpose clear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives an explicit alternative and the condition for choosing this tool: use it rather than `extract_invoice_fields` for invoice text, not invoice fields. This is exactly the routing guidance an agent needs.

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

All Synthex Forge — x402 Paid Agent Services toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources