Extract text from images with OCR. Submit an image URL or file, receive an async job ticket, then poll for the extracted text.
Image text extraction (OCR) ($0.02 USDC/call). ASYNC — returns a job ticket; poll with x402_poll_job (job_type 'box').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | Image URL (or use file) | |
| file | No | Base64-encoded image (or use url) | |
| filename | No | Filename, e.g. photo.png |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses two critical behaviors: the call is ASYNC and returns a job ticket, and it costs $0.02 USDC. It also names the polling tool and job type. It does not mention failure modes or rate limits, but the key side effect (billing) and execution model are clearly 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?
The description is extremely compact: two sentences that front-load the purpose and cost, then immediately convey the async polling contract. Every clause earns its place and no redundant information appears.
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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description does well to explain the async job flow and cost. However, it does not clarify that at least one of url or file should be provided, even though the schema lists all parameters as optional. An agent could attempt a call with no inputs and fail. The final result content is also unspecified, though the polling pointer mitigates that gap.
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 has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (url, file, filename). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 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 function: 'Image text extraction (OCR)'. This is a specific verb-resource pairing that distinguishes it from sibling tools like x402_image, x402_screenshot, and x402_pdftext. The async behavior is also flagged up front.
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 provides explicit post-invocation workflow guidance ('poll with x402_poll_job (job_type box)'), but it does not state when to choose this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Usage is mostly implied by the OCR purpose rather than explicitly scoped.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.