APIClaw

openapi_v2_fashion_image_embedding

Generate fashion image embeddings (768-dim vectors for similarity search)

Generate fashion-specific image embeddings using fine-tuned SigLIP2.

Encode product images into 768-dim vectors aligned with the text embedding space. Use cases: visual similarity search, image-to-text matching, duplicate detection, catalog indexing. Accepts HTTPS URLs or base64-encoded images. Vectors are L2-normalized by default. Credits: 1 credit per request.

Responses:

200: Successful Response (Success Response) Content-Type: application/json

Example Response:

{
  "success": true,
  "meta": {
    "requestId": "Requestid",
    "timestamp": "Timestamp"
  }
}

Output Schema:

{
  "properties": {
    "success": {
      "type": "boolean",
      "title": "Success",
      "description": "Whether the request was successful",
      "default": true
    },
    "data": {
      "description": "Response data payload"
    },
    "error": {
      "description": "Error details if request failed"
    },
    "meta": {
      "description": "Metadata for API responses.\n\nCredit fields follow the ADR-0003 parallel-fields strategy (Option 3):\n- `credits_remaining` / `credits_consumed` (int): legacy fields, rounded\n  to whole credits, kept for zero-breaking-change to existing SDK clients.\n- `credits_remaining_exact` / `credits_consumed_exact` (float): new\n  precision-aware fields for clients that opt in to decimal credits.\n\nSee ADR-0003 decision 5 and the \u00a78 deprecation timeline.\n\nTODO(2026-11, ADR-0003 \u00a78 +6mo): mark `credits_remaining` /\n`credits_consumed` as `deprecated=True` in their Field() definitions\nand announce in customer changelog.\nTODO(2027-05, ADR-0003 \u00a78 +12mo): remove the legacy int fields via a\nmajor-version bump of the OpenAPI surface.",
      "properties": {
        "requestId": {
          "type": "string",
          "title": "Requestid",
          "description": "Unique request identifier"
        },
        "timestamp": {
          "type": "string",
          "title": "Timestamp",
          "description": "Response timestamp in ISO 8601 format"
        },
        "total": {
          "title": "Total",
          "description": "Total number of records"
        },
        "page": {
          "title": "Page",
          "description": "Current page number"
        },
        "pageSize": {
          "title": "Pagesize",
          "description": "Number of records per page"
        },
        "totalPages": {
          "title": "Totalpages",
          "description": "Total number of pages"
        },
        "creditsRemaining": {
          "title": "Creditsremaining",
          "description": "Remaining API credits (rounded to whole credits; see creditsRemainingExact for precise value)"
        },
        "creditsConsumed": {
          "title": "Creditsconsumed",
          "description": "Credits consumed by this request (rounded; see creditsConsumedExact for precise value)"
        },
        "creditsRemainingExact": {
          "title": "Creditsremainingexact",
          "description": "Remaining API credits, precise to 1 decimal place"
        },
        "creditsConsumedExact": {
          "title": "Creditsconsumedexact",
          "description": "Credits consumed by this request, precise to 1 decimal place"
        },
        "tokensUsage": {
          "description": "Provider token-usage block \u2014 populated on terminal video polls only, null on every non-video endpoint. See TokensUsage for its fields."
        }
      },
      "type": "object",
      "required": [
        "requestId",
        "timestamp"
      ],
      "title": "ResponseMeta"
    }
  },
  "type": "object",
  "required": [
    "meta"
  ],
  "title": "OpenApiResponse[FashionImageEmbeddingResult]",
  "examples": []
}

422: Validation Error Content-Type: application/json

Example Response:

{
  "detail": [
    {
      "loc": [],
      "msg": "Message",
      "type": "Error Type",
      "ctx": {}
    }
  ]
}

Output Schema:

{
  "properties": {
    "detail": {
      "items": {
        "properties": {
          "loc": {
            "items": {},
            "type": "array",
            "title": "Location"
          },
          "msg": {
            "type": "string",
            "title": "Message"
          },
          "type": {
            "type": "string",
            "title": "Error Type"
          },
          "input": {
            "title": "Input"
          },
          "ctx": {
            "type": "object",
            "title": "Context"
          }
        },
        "type": "object",
        "required": [
          "loc",
          "msg",
          "type"
        ],
        "title": "ValidationError"
      },
      "type": "array",
      "title": "Detail"
    }
  },
  "type": "object",
  "title": "HTTPValidationError"
}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`imageUrls`	Yes	Product images to encode: HTTPS URLs (e.g. 'https://cdn.example.com/product.jpg') or base64-encoded strings (with optional data URI prefix). Max 8 per request. Supported formats: JPEG, PNG, WebP.
`normalizeVectors`	No	L2-normalize output vectors to unit length (default true). When true, dot product = cosine similarity.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the model (fine-tuned SigLIP2), output dimensionality (768), default L2 normalization (and that it can be disabled), accepted input formats (HTTPS/base64/WebP/JPEG/PNG), and credit usage (1 per request). It also includes a detailed response schema with meta and credit fields. It omits rate limits and error handling beyond 422, but for a read-only embedding generator this is substantial transparency.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The opening description is concise and front-loaded with the essential info. However, the Responses section includes a full JSON schema with internal ADR-0003 discussions, deprecation TODOs, and repeated example/output schema, adding irrelevant bloat that an agent does not need for tool selection or invocation.

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?

The description is functionally complete for an agent: it covers what the tool does, how to call it (input constraints, normalization default), what it returns (detailed embedded output schema), and costs (1 credit). The embedded output schema compensates for the missing structured output schema. The internal TODOs degrade readability slightly, preventing a 5.

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% (both imageUrls and normalizeVectors are fully described). The description restates the input formats and default normalization but adds little beyond the schema. It mentions the vectors align with text embedding space, which is output-oriented, not param-specific. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already carries the parameter meaning.

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

Purpose5/5

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 specific verbs: 'Generate fashion image embeddings (768-dim vectors for similarity search)' and 'Encode product images into 768-dim vectors aligned with the text embedding space.' It identifies the resource (fashion product images) and output (768-dim vectors), and distinguishes from siblings like openapi_v2_fashion_image_search and openapi_v2_fashion_text_embedding by emphasizing fashion-specific image embeddings aligned with text space.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides explicit use cases ('visual similarity search, image-to-text matching, duplicate detection, catalog indexing') and clarifies input constraints (HTTPS URLs or base64, max 8 per request, supported formats). It also notes the credit cost. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, which would make it a 5.

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

All APIClaw tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have unclear boundaries, most notably openapi_v2_competitor_product_keywords and openapi_v2_product_traffic_terms, which have identical descriptions. The deprecated openapi_v2_realtime_product duplicates openapi_v3_realtime_product, and openapi_v2_image_embedding overlaps heavily with openapi_v2_fashion_image_embedding.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is inconsistent: a few tools follow a clean verb_noun pattern (create_video_asset, list_video_assets, poll_video_task), while the vast majority are prefixed with openapi_v2_/openapi_v3_ followed by nouns or mixed verbs. The route-style prefix is not a meaningful verb and creates an arbitrary split across the tool set.

Tool Count2/5

49 tools is far beyond the well-scoped range and spans multiple unrelated domains (Amazon product data, TikTok commerce, fashion vision, web scraping, video generation, billing). The server appears to be an entire REST API surface exposed wholesale rather than a curated set of capabilities.

Completeness3/5

Each domain is individually fairly complete (Amazon search/reviews/keywords/VoC, TikTok search, web tools, video generation), but there are notable gaps: video assets lack update/delete, video tasks lack cancel/list, and there is no singular 'get daily product by ASIN' alongside the realtime variants. The broad scope makes it hard to verify full lifecycle coverage across all domains.

Resources

Need Help?