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. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Does not disclose whether the tool is idempotent, destructive, or has side effects. No mention of authentication beyond token, rate limits, or error conditions. Since annotations are absent, the description should provide more behavioral context.
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 focused sentences with no wasted words. Action and requirement are front-loaded.
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?
Omits important details such as return value, success/failure behavior, and prerequisites beyond token. Given no output schema and no annotations, the description inadequately prepares an agent for correct invocation.
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?
While schema descriptions cover both parameters, the description adds that token is required, contradicting the schema where token is optional (only orderId is required). This inconsistency undermines clarity.
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?
Clearly states the tool requests a real-time data usage update for an active eSIM from the carrier, using specific verbs and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like cancel_order or get_esim_catalog.
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?
Only mentions a prerequisite (valid session token) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to use it.
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.
