Guthaben aufladen. Hinweis: Die Zahlung wird gerade eingerichtet — der Aufladewunsch wird vermerkt, aber noch nicht real belastet (die kostenlosen Funktionen bleiben ohnehin frei).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account_id | No | Konto (optional; sonst neu). | |
| amount_cents | No | Wunschbetrag in Cent (optional). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description discloses a critical behavioral trait: the top-up request is only recorded, not actually billed. This is valuable for agents to avoid expecting a real charge. Yet it doesn't clarify other aspects like return values or side effects on accounts.
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, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a succinct warning. No filler words; every sentence contributes meaningful information.
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's simplicity (two optional params, no output schema), the description covers the core behavior and caveat, but leaves ambiguity about the exact response or what happens after the request is recorded. For an agent to act on the result, more detail would help.
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 input schema already documents both parameters with descriptions (account_id, amount_cents). The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, so it relies entirely on schema coverage, which is 100%.
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 opens with 'Guthaben aufladen' (top up credit), clearly stating the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like account_balance by focusing on adding credit rather than checking it, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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 note 'Die Zahlung wird gerade eingerichtet' provides context that the tool does not currently execute real payments, giving a clear indication of when not to expect a charge. However, it doesn't explicitly state alternative tools or provide a full usage policy.
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.
Every tool targets a distinct action and resource: fax, brief, envelope, template, account, etc. There is no noticeable overlap; even fill_pdf and fill_template are clearly differentiated by type of PDF.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., account_balance, fax_confirm, search_templates). No mixing of conventions or irregular styles.
With 33 tools, the server covers multiple subdomains (PDF, fax, postal, signatures, templates). This is on the higher side but still reasonable for a comprehensive document processing server. However, it could benefit from consolidation.
The tool surface covers core document workflows: fill, sign, scan, fax, mail, template exploration, and account management. Minor gaps exist (e.g., PDF merging or splitting), but most user journeys are supported.
