PikaSim

cancel_sms_rental

DestructiveIdempotent

Cancel a long-term SMS rental and refund the full amount to the wallet. Only works within 2 hours of purchase AND only if the number has NOT received any message — this mirrors the provider refund window, so if the window has passed or a code already arrived it returns a clear reason and refunds nothing (the number worked). Use for a genuine change of mind or a wrong purchase shortly after renting. The receiptId comes from rent_sms_number or list_sms_orders. Requires a connected agent wallet.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`receiptId`	Yes	The rental receipt ID from rent_sms_number or list_sms_orders

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already mark it as destructive/openWorld/idempotent, but the description adds crucial context: the 2-hour window, the no-message requirement, the refund behavior, the clear-reason return on failure, and the connected-wallet prerequisite. This significantly exceeds the baseline.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place: action, conditions, rationale, use case, parameter origin, and prerequisite. It front-loads the action and keeps a logical flow.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (conditional refund, time window) and no output schema, the description covers all critical aspects: success behavior, failure behavior, prerequisites, and source of the ID. The agent has enough to select and invoke correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already describes receiptId fully as 'The rental receipt ID from rent_sms_number or list_sms_orders' with 100% coverage. The description repeats this same origin without adding any new meaning, so it merits the baseline 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource ('Cancel a long-term SMS rental') and states the refund effect, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like cancel_sms_verification and cancel_esim. It also identifies the receiptId origin, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit conditions for when cancellation works (within 2 hours, no messages received) and explicitly says it returns a clear reason and refunds nothing if the window has passed or a code arrived. It also gives a concrete use case ('genuine change of mind or wrong purchase'). However, it lacks an explicit reference to an alternative cancellation tool for other resource types, so a 4 rather than 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All PikaSim tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

There is notable overlap between search tools (search, search_esim_packages, search_phone_plans) and detail tools (fetch, get_package_details, get_pricing, get_phone_plan_pricing). While descriptions clarify some differences, agents may struggle to pick the right tool without careful reading, especially between 'search' and 'search_esim_packages' and between 'fetch' and 'get_package_details'.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a clear verb_noun convention (e.g., purchase_esim, list_orders, get_balance). A few are single verbs like 'fetch' and 'search', which stand out but are still recognizable as actions. Overall the pattern is predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

With 31 tools, this is a large set. The server covers several distinct sub-domains (eSIM data, phone-number eSIM, SMS verification, SMS rentals, wallet management), which justifies some size, but the count is on the high side and could be consolidated (e.g., merging search tools or detail-fetching tools).

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the full lifecycle for each product line: search, view details, purchase, list, check status, top-up/cancel, plus wallet management. The only minor gap is a lack of explicit update tools (e.g., changing a phone plan), but core workflows are well supported.

Resources

Need Help?