Extract text from PDFs via URL or base64 file. Submits an asynchronous job, returns a ticket, and requires polling with x402_poll_job to retrieve results. Pay-per-call using USDC.
PDF text extraction ($0.02 USDC/call). ASYNC — returns a job ticket; poll with x402_poll_job (job_type 'box').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | PDF URL (or use file) | |
| file | No | Base64-encoded PDF (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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses async behavior, cost per call, and the polling mechanism. It does not mention error cases or authentication, but the core behavioral traits are covered.
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 concise sentences with no wasted words. Key facts (cost, async, polling) are front-loaded. The structure is efficient and scannable.
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 essential context: async operation, cost, and how to get results. No output schema exists, but the job ticket and polling instruction are sufficient for a simple tool. Minor gap: no mention of error handling, but overall it's adequate.
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 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies; no additional param semantics are provided.
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?
Description clearly states the tool does 'PDF text extraction' with a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from siblings by name and function, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling it is not. The cost and async nature are also mentioned, adding clarity.
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?
Explicitly states the async flow: returns a job ticket and instructs to poll with x402_poll_job with job_type 'box'. This gives clear follow-up steps. It does not mention when not to use it, but for a specialized tool, that's acceptable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.