get_order_statusCheck an order. Call this after the user says they've paid.
Not read-only: an order still in progress is advanced first — payment is confirmed and the provider order placed or collected — so the status can change as a result of calling this.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| order_id | Yes | order_id from create_checkout |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses a critical non-obvious behavior: the tool is not read-only, and it advances the order by confirming payment and placing/collecting the provider order. This adds significant context beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation and clarifies the side effects. It is consistent with all 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?
The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and immediately followed by usage timing and the critical behavioral warning. Every sentence adds value with no filler or redundancy.
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?
The tool is simple with one parameter, has an output schema, and annotations cover safety traits. The description supplies the key missing context about the state-changing effect, making it complete for invocation. No critical information is absent.
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?
The input schema has one parameter with a clear description ('order_id from create_checkout'), giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is justified.
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 checks an order and gives the specific context of payment confirmation. This distinguishes it from list_my_orders, but it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it falls short of the highest score.
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 instructs to call the tool after the user says they've paid, which is a clear usage trigger. It also warns about the state-changing nature. However, it does not mention when not to use it or reference alternative tools, so a score of 4 is appropriate.
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 serves a distinct purpose: planning, ordering, payment, activation, usage, top-up, and cancellation. No two tools overlap in functionality; even create_checkout and pay_order are distinct (one initiates and returns a payment URL, the other handles x402-only payment).
All 11 tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., cancel_order, get_esim_activation, search_esim_plans). The variety of verbs (create, get, list, search, cancel, pay) is appropriate for the actions represented, and there are no naming inconsistencies.
The server has 11 tools, well within the ideal 3-15 range. Each tool covers a necessary step in the eSIM lifecycle without redundancy, making the toolset appropriately scoped and manageable.
The toolset covers the full eSIM workflow: plan discovery (search, get details), purchasing (create_checkout), top-ups (create_topup_checkout, list_topup_options), payment (pay_order), order tracking (get_order_status, list_my_orders), activation (get_esim_activation), usage (get_esim_usage), and cancellation (cancel_order). No critical gaps are apparent.