Startet den bezahlten Faxversand: liefert eine Stripe-Checkout-URL. Der MENSCH bezahlt über diese URL; danach fax_confirm mit der job_id. (Kein kostenloser Direktversand über die KI.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | Yes | Zielnummer in E.164, z. B. +4976339202117. | |
| pages | No | Seitenzahl (optional). | |
| filename | No | Dateiname (optional). | |
| pdfBase64 | Yes | Das zu faxende PDF. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the staged payment behavior: a human must pay via the URL, then confirm with fax_confirm. It clearly states the free direct send is not possible. It doesn't detail return shapes or failure modes, but it covers the critical workflow context.
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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value, including the parenthetical note about no free dispatch, which is essential guidance without verbosity.
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 multi-step payment flow with no output schema, the description explains the complete sequence: start, get URL, human pays, then fax_confirm. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's role and how to proceed, although it could mention response structure or prerequisites.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well-described. The description adds no extra parameter-specific details but mentions job_id, which is part of the workflow, providing slightly more context than the schema alone. Baseline 3 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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Startet') and resource ('bezahlten Faxversand'), and distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning it returns a Stripe checkout URL, as opposed to fax_confirm (which confirms after payment) or fax_quote (which quotes).
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 gives explicit context: this is the paid fax flow, no free direct dispatch via AI, and it instructs the next step (fax_confirm with the job_id). It could explicitly name optional alternatives like fax_quote for estimates, but the guidance is strong.
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.
