AgentRoam

validate_order

Dry-run an order and mint a one-time confirm_token (valid 10 minutes). Returns a human-readable summary that MUST be shown to the user for approval before calling create_order. Does NOT create the order or reserve funds.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`coin`	Yes	Payment coin, e.g. USDC, USDT, BTC, SOL
`email`	Yes	Delivery email for the buyer
`phone`	No	Phone number to recharge (REQUIRED for mobile top-ups, with country code)
`dynamic`	Yes	true for dynamic-range amounts, false for fixed denomination labels
`network`	Yes	Exact network string from get_price/networks, e.g. "Solana", "Tron", "ETH Mainnet"
`amount_usd`	Yes	USD amount (for dynamic-range products)
`brand_slug`	Yes	brandSlug from search_products
`country_code`	Yes	countryCode from search_products
`denomination_label`	Yes	Exact denomination label (e.g. "100 USD", "60 UC", "1 GB 7 days")

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`error`	No	product_not_found \| out_of_stock \| PHONE_MISSING
`price`	No
`valid`	No
`message`	No
`summary`	No	Human-readable purchase summary — show to the user for approval
`instructions`	No
`confirm_token`	No	One-time token for create_order, valid 10 minutes
`expires_in_seconds`	No

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already mark it non-read-only and non-destructive; the description adds the important behavioral details: the confirm_token is single-use, valid for 10 minutes, and the operation has no order-creation or fund-reservation side effects. This goes beyond the annotation flags and accurately sets expectations for the agent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description uses three concise sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action, then adds the valid duration, the mandatory user-approval step, and the non-mutating boundary. Every line earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the large parameter list and the fact that an output schema exists, this description is complete. It captures the validate-then-create flow, the temporary token, the required approval step, and the lack of side effects: an agent has everything it needs to call the tool correctly and process the returned summary.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters in full. The description does not add parameter-level details, but with full schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate since nothing is missing.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('dry-run') and a specific resource ('an order'), then names the exact output (a one-time confirm_token). It explicitly distinguishes itself from create_order by noting that it does NOT create the order or reserve funds, so an agent immediately knows which sibling it is not.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It says exactly when to use the tool: before calling create_order, and it requires showing the returned summary to the user for approval. The statements 'Does NOT create the order or reserve funds' make the boundary with create_order unambiguous.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All AgentRoam tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clear distinct purposes: listing currencies, payment methods, prices, brands, eSIM plans, products, searching, validating, creating, and checking order status. However, potential confusion between list_esim_plans and list_products for eSIM purchases, and search_products overlapping with list_brands/list_products, creates slight ambiguity. purchase_wizard serves as a fallback but is clearly labeled.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: get_currencies, get_order_status, get_payment_methods, get_price, list_brands, list_esim_plans, list_products, validate_order, create_order, search_products. 'purchase_wizard' deviates slightly as a noun phrase rather than verb_noun, but it's a distinct standalone tool.

Tool Count5/5

With 11 tools covering the full purchase lifecycle (browse, search, price, validate, create, status) plus payment configuration, the count is well-scoped for a payment/order platform. Each tool serves a necessary function without redundancy.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface is comprehensive: listing brands/products/eSIM plans, searching, getting prices and methods, validating and creating orders, and checking status. The flow from validate_order → create_order → get_order_status is complete, with fallback purchase_wizard covering widget-less scenarios. No major gaps.

Resources

Need Help?