search_topup_packagesFind compatible top-up packages for an existing eSIM. Requires a session key and the eSIM's ICCID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| iccid | Yes | The ICCID of the eSIM to find top-ups for | |
| session_key | Yes | Session key from a previous tool call |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which is consistent with the description indicating a read operation. The description provides no additional behavioral details beyond what annotations and schema already imply, so it adds limited value.
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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and includes key prerequisites. No wasted words.
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?
Given the lack of an output schema, the description could elaborate on what the result looks like (e.g., list of package IDs or details). It is adequate for a simple search with annotations, but missing output context reduces completeness.
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 100% with both parameters described. The description does not add new meaning beyond what is in the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance parameter understanding.
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 finds compatible top-up packages for an existing eSIM, which differentiates it from sibling tools like search_packages that may not be eSIM-specific. However, it does not explicitly contrast with search_packages.
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 description mentions prerequisites (session key and ICCID) but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_packages or buy_topup. The usage context is implied but not explicit.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose: buying top-ups, checking balances, checking order status, creating orders, getting business context, fetching package details, listing eSIMs, searching packages, and searching top-up packages. No overlapping functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case. Verbs like 'get', 'list', 'search', 'create', 'buy', 'check' are used appropriately, making the naming predictable.
With 9 tools, the server is well-scoped for managing eSIMs. It covers browsing packages, ordering, checking status and balance, listing eSIMs, and handling top-ups without being overwhelming.
The tool set covers the main lifecycle: search, create order, check order status, list eSIMs, check balance, and top-up. Missing features like cancellation or order history are minor gaps, but the core workflows are well-supported.