venice_text_parserExtract text from a document URL by fetching it server-side, uploading as multipart/form-data, and authenticating via x402 wallet or API key.
Extract text from a document URL. Fetches the URL server-side and uploads the file as multipart/form-data. Supports x402 wallet auth (no Venice account needed) and API key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond the annotations: the URL is fetched server-side, the file is sent as multipart/form-data, and it accepts either x402 wallet auth (no Venice account) or an API key. Those auth and transport details are exactly what an agent needs and are not in the structured fields. It does not explain the readOnlyHint=false implication (no persistent state created) or rate/size limits.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the mechanism, then the auth options. Every sentence carries information; only the auth sentence could arguably be trimmed.
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers input and auth adequately but never says what comes back (plain text, markdown, per-page structure) or what happens on an unsupported/failed fetch. Those omissions are the main remaining 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?
There is one parameter at 0% schema description coverage, so the schema gives only 'string' + uri format. The description clarifies that the value is the document URL and that the server fetches it, which adds real meaning, but it does not state supported URL schemes, size limits, or whether authenticated URLs work.
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 a specific verb and resource ('Extract text from a document URL'), and the title enumerates supported formats (PDF/DOCX/EPUB/PPTX/XLSX), which separates it from venice_web_scrape and the other media-generation siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to prefer for non-document input, so it is clear but not sibling-routing.
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?
Usage is implied by the resource type: an agent can infer this is for document files rather than web pages or images. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no alternative named (e.g., venice_web_scrape for HTML pages), so the routing decision is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.