pdf_to_markdownExtract a PDF into page-delimited Markdown with metadata and a source digest. Costs $0.0025.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| maxPages | No | ||
| pdfBase64 | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent traits. The description adds context about cost ($0.0025) and output format (page-delimited Markdown with metadata and source digest), which are beyond the annotations. No contradictions.
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?
Single sentence with no wasted words. All key elements are front-loaded: action, output format, and cost.
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?
While the description captures the overall purpose, it lacks parameter documentation and does not explain how to provide the PDF (via URL or base64). With 4 parameters and no output schema, more detail is needed for correct invocation.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. However, the description does not explain any of the 4 parameters (url, title, maxPages, pdfBase64). The agent must infer from parameter names alone, which is insufficient.
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 extracts a PDF into page-delimited Markdown with metadata and a source digest, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools which are in different domains (audio, Solana).
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions are provided. However, the tool's purpose is clear and sibling tools are unrelated, so usage is implied but not explicitly guided.
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.
The Solana tools are distinct among themselves, but the inclusion of normalize_audio and pdf_to_markdown creates domain confusion. An agent cannot easily determine when to use these media tools in a server named after Solana transaction evidence.
Naming conventions are mixed: normalize_audio uses verb_noun, pdf_to_markdown uses a different pattern, and Solana tools use a prefix but mix noun and verb forms. No consistent verb_noun pattern across the set.
With 6 tools, the count is reasonable for a server, but the scope is mismatched—two tools are unrelated to Solana transactions, making the set feel poorly scoped for the server's stated purpose.
The Solana tools cover priority fees, token analysis, transaction analysis, and simulation, which are useful for transaction evidence, but missing operations like transaction broadcast or account details. The unrelated audio and PDF tools add noise rather than completeness.