Get one Alt eSIM plan by its sku or id. Returns full details: title, data amount, validity days, USD price, coverage carriers, product URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sku_or_id | Yes | The plan sku (e.g. 'eSIM_Alt_JP_1DG1') or id. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It states it returns 'full details' including specific fields, which is helpful. However, it does not mention if the operation is read-only, any authorization requirements, error conditions (e.g., invalid sku), or rate limits. The description is adequate but could be more transparent about side effects or limitations.
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 concise—two sentences that front-load the purpose and then list returned details. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.
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?
Given a simple single-parameter tool, the description covers the purpose, the parameter usage (implicitly), and the return content. It does not have an output schema, so the description compensates by listing returned fields. However, it could be more complete by noting if the tool is read-only or what happens when the plan is not found, but the low complexity keeps this from being a major 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'sku_or_id' with its type and example. The description does not add further meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline 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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'one Alt eSIM plan by its sku or id', and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'search_esim_plans' (which lists/filters plans) by specifying a single plan lookup. It also lists the returned fields, adding precision.
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 implies this tool is for fetching a single plan when you already know the sku or id, contrasting with 'search_esim_plans' which searches over plans. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., to list all plans) or provide alternatives beyond the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clear, distinct role: listing destinations, searching plans, getting one plan, creating a checkout, and fetching QR/status. The create_checkout and get_qr_code tools are related but the descriptions clearly separate payment creation from fulfillment status.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: create_checkout, get_esim_plan, get_qr_code, list_destinations, search_esim_plans. This makes the API predictable and easy for an agent to navigate.
Five tools is well-scoped for this server's purpose: discover destinations, search and inspect plans, create a payment checkout, and retrieve delivery/status information. Each tool earns its place with no redundancy.
The tool set covers the full eSIM purchase lifecycle: plan discovery, plan detail lookup, payment checkout creation, and QR code delivery with clear status handling. The get_qr_code status states cover waiting, processing, ready, expired, refunded, and failed, so agents can handle all outcome paths.
