Purchases an eSIM package directly in chat using the user's wallet balance. If balance is insufficient, returns a magic link to top-up.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | No | The secure session token returned by verify_agent_otp or a Personal Access Token. | |
| packageCode | Yes | The package code of the eSIM (e.g. PIK0SW14Q). | |
| discountCode | No | Optional coupon code (e.g. WELCOME10). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It explains the purchase and insufficient balance handling but omits success effects (e.g., activation, delivery method) and does not mention side effects like wallet deduction.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, no extraneous information. Efficient and clear.
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 no output schema, the description should explain the post-purchase outcome (e.g., what the user receives, any next steps). It also lacks information on potential issues like refunds or activation delays.
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 each parameter. The description does not add additional semantic value beyond what is in the schema.
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 tool purchases an eSIM package using wallet balance, and specifies the fallback for insufficient balance. This distinguishes it from siblings like purchase_topup and get_checkout_url.
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 usage context (direct purchase via wallet) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like purchase_topup or get_checkout_url. No prerequisites or when-not guidance provided.
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 targets a distinct action: order management, catalog browsing, wallet operations, authentication, and support. No two tools have overlapping purposes, making selection unambiguous.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (e.g., get_esim_catalog, purchase_esim_with_wallet, verify_agent_otp). There is no mixing of conventions.
With 14 tools, the surface is well-scoped for an eSIM service: catalog browsing, purchasing, wallet management, authentication, order history, and support. No tool feels redundant or missing.
The set covers the core eSIM lifecycle (browse, buy, cancel, top-up, monitor usage, wallet, auth, support). A minor gap is the lack of a dedicated tool to retrieve a single order detail beyond the paginated list, but agents can work around.
