Requests a real-time data usage update for an active eSIM from the carrier. Requires a valid session token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | No | The secure session token returned by verify_agent_otp. | |
| orderId | Yes | The ID of the eSIM order. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | No | ||
| isError | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "content": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "text": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "type",
+ "text"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "isError": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile and external dependency are largely covered. The description adds the authentication prerequisite ('Requires a valid session token') and the fact that the request hits the carrier, which is useful, but this overlaps substantially with the token parameter's own schema note and the openWorld hint.
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, zero filler, and the action plus its precondition are front-loaded. Every clause carries information an agent needs.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover idempotency and safety. The description covers purpose, auth, and target resource; only the trigger scenario (e.g., when a user asks for current usage vs. cached data) is left implicit.
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 both the token and orderId parameters are already documented in the schema, including where the token comes from (verify_agent_otp). The description adds no format, constraint, or validation detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 gives a specific verb ('Requests a real-time data usage update'), the resource ('an active eSIM'), and the data source ('from the carrier'), which clearly separates it from transaction-focused siblings like purchase_esim_with_wallet or get_user_orders. It stops short of naming any sibling it could be confused with, but no sibling covers the same operation.
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 clause 'for an active eSIM' implies the precondition for use, and the action itself (fetching fresh usage) hints at the scenario, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not-to-use, and no alternative named. Adequate but requiring inference.
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.