venice_embeddingsCompute text embeddings for single strings or arrays using an OpenAI-compatible API with x402 wallet or API key authentication.
Compute embeddings for text input (OpenAI-compatible). Supports x402 wallet auth (no Venice account needed) and API key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | Yes | Text or array of texts. | |
| model | Yes | Embedding model id. | |
| encoding_format | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Input schema / properties / model / minLengthAdded value: +1Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "input"
-]New value: +[
+ "input",
+ "model"
+]v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations exist (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the description carries a lower burden, and it usefully adds that two auth modes are supported. However, it says nothing about batching limits, cost implications, or what the response contains, so it adds only modest context.
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 compact, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. It is efficient, though quite terse, leaving room that could have been spent on missing semantics.
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 an embeddings endpoint with no output schema, the description omits the return shape (vector vs base64) and batch behavior, and leaves encoding_format unexplained. Auth is covered, but the output-format gap keeps it from being fully complete.
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 coverage is 67% – input and model are documented, encoding_format is not. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema (e.g., that input accepts arrays for batch, or what encoding_format changes). This is roughly baseline-adequate without compensating for the gap.
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?
States a specific verb (Compute) and resource (embeddings for text input), which the agent can distinguish from chat, image, TTS, or ASR siblings. The resource name alone differentiates it; it doesn't proactively name a sibling it is not, keeping it short of a 5.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no alternatives named. The mention of x402 vs API key is about auth, not about when this tool should be selected over another.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.