Get a full EXIF and file metadata report as JSON for a file URL or base64-encoded file. Returns an async job ticket to poll for results, with each call costing $0.02 USDC.
Full EXIF/file metadata report as JSON ($0.02 USDC/call). ASYNC — returns a job ticket; poll with x402_poll_job (job_type 'box').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | File URL (or use file) | |
| file | No | Base64-encoded file (or use url) | |
| filename | No | Filename |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently reveals a cost of $0.02 USDC per call and the async nature (job ticket + polling), which are critical for an agent to decide whether to invoke the tool. 'Report' implies a read-only operation, which is acceptable even if not explicitly stated.
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 with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by cost and async handling. Every word serves a purpose.
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 description covers the cost, async return, and polling procedure including the job_type. Since there is no output schema, the final result is obtained through polling, which is explained. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke and retrieve the result correctly.
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 provides 100% coverage for all three parameters (url, file, filename) with descriptive text. The description does not add new parameter-level meaning, but the either/or relationship between url and file is implied in the schema descriptions. 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 states the purpose precisely: it returns a full EXIF/file metadata report as JSON. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like x402_read (file content) or x402_search, and the resource (file metadata) is unambiguous.
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?
It provides explicit operational guidance: the tool is async and returns a job ticket, which must be polled with x402_poll_job using job_type 'box'. This tells the agent exactly how to obtain the result. It does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the async flow is sufficiently clear for correct usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.