One deposit of the wallet by its token: status pending → paid (credited, bonus included) | underpaid (nothing credited yet, the rest can still arrive) | expired. Poll every ~30 s after sending; crypto needs the network's confirmations. Needs the wallet code.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Goes well beyond readOnlyHint/idempotentHint by explaining the pending→paid/underpaid/expired lifecycle, partial credit behavior, and the need to poll for network confirmations. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
Three short, information-dense sentences pack status semantics, timing guidance, and a required input into a compact definition. No filler or repetition of schema/annotations.
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?
With a read-only, idempotent, single-parameter tool and an output schema available, the description covers all practical decision points: status meanings, polling cadence, confirmation delays, and the required wallet code. Nothing critical is missing.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the bare token property. It says the lookup is 'by its token' and that the wallet code is needed, which gives partial meaning, but it does not explain the token's format or where to obtain it.
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?
Description states a specific operation: retrieve one deposit for a wallet by token, and enumerates the expected status values. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like create_deposit or list_topups.
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?
Provides clear usage context: call after sending a deposit, poll every ~30 seconds, and allow time for crypto confirmations. It does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use, but the context is sufficient.
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 maps to a distinct entity or action: destinations, plans, checkout, wallet purchase, deposits, wallet, orders, usage, top-ups, and payment methods. create_checkout and purchase_esim both place orders but are clearly differentiated by funding source and explicitly cross-referenced in descriptions.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: create_*, get_*, list_*, search_*, purchase_esim. There are no mixed conventions or vague verbs.
12 tools is well-scoped for an eSIM storefront plus wallet subsystem. Each tool has a distinct role, and none feel redundant or excessive.
The set covers destination discovery, plan selection, checkout and wallet purchases, order tracking, wallet funding, top-ups, and usage checks. Minor gaps exist around cancellation/refund flows and listing non-wallet orders, but the core lifecycle is well covered.