Validates a discount coupon code for checkout. Note: User login is mandatory to validate a coupon. If this returns a 401 Unauthorized error, you must inform the user that they need to log in (by sending an OTP using send_agent_otp) before they can apply a coupon.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | The coupon code to validate (e.g. WELCOME10). | |
| packageCode | Yes | The eSIM package code to check applicability for. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description discloses the login requirement and potential 401 error, but does not explicitly mention that the tool is read-only or non-destructive. However, it adds meaningful context beyond the schema.
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 with no wasted words. Primary purpose is stated first, then the important note about login requirement, making it easy to scan.
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?
For a simple validation tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, and error handling. It doesn't describe the response format, but that is often inferred for validation endpoints.
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 baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning or constraints beyond what the schema already provides for the two parameters.
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 uses a specific verb 'validates' and resource 'discount coupon code for checkout', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like purchase_esim_with_wallet or send_agent_otp. No other tool handles coupon validation.
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?
Explicitly states that user login is mandatory and provides actionable guidance on handling a 401 error by informing the user to log in via send_agent_otp. This helps the agent decide when to use this tool and how to recover from auth failures.
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.
