Preis für einen Faxversand. Seitenzahl aus pdfBase64 abgeleitet, wenn nicht angegeben.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | Zielnummer E.164 (optional, für Zonenpreis). | |
| pages | No | Seitenzahl (optional; sonst aus PDF). | |
| pdfBase64 | No | Das zu faxende PDF (z. B. aus fill_template). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal one important behavior: that the page count is derived from pdfBase64 if not specified ('Seitenzahl aus pdfBase64 abgeleitet, wenn nicht angegeben'). It does not mention other aspects like whether the operation is read-only, how pricing is calculated, or any prerequisites.
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, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and adds the key derivation rule. It is highly efficient with no wasted words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., a numeric price, a formatted quote, or a price calculation object). The description only explains the input behavior, not the output. Additionally, it does not clarify how this tool relates to siblings like fax_create_checkout, leaving the agent uncertain about the full context of its use.
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?
While the input schema already describes all three parameters (100% coverage), the description adds meaningful semantic context by stating the relationship between pdfBase64 and pages—that pages will be derived from the PDF if not provided. This clarifies the intended interplay of the optional parameters beyond the schema descriptions.
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 function: 'Preis für einen Faxversand' (price for a fax transmission). This identifies it as a pricing/quoting tool for faxes. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from siblings like fax_create_checkout or fax_confirm, which also relate to fax transactions.
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 the tool is used to obtain a price for sending a fax, and the clause about deriving page count from pdfBase64 suggests usage when a PDF is available. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternative tools such as fax_create_checkout or fax_quote being a preliminary step.
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.
