Poll a quick SMS order for the incoming verification code. Read-only. Call every 15-30 seconds after order_sms_verification until status is "received", then relay the code (and full message) to the user. Orders auto-refund if nothing arrives within 20 minutes. Requires a connected agent wallet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| orderId | Yes | The Order ID returned by order_sms_verification (also listed by list_sms_orders) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true), the description adds critical behavioral details: 'Read-only', the polling cadence, the auto-refund within 20 minutes, and the wallet requirement. It also clarifies the expected output ('relay the code (and full message) to the user'), providing rich context beyond the 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 four sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: what it does, when/how often to call, timeout behavior, and prerequisites. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no fluff or repetition.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and existing annotations, the description covers the full context: purpose, operation, polling frequency, failure/timeout behavior, required precondition (wallet), and how to use the result. It leaves no critical gaps.
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% for the single parameter orderId, with the schema description already stating it's 'The Order ID returned by order_sms_verification'. The tool description references the same relationship in its usage guidance but does not add syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline but adds no extra value.
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's purpose: 'Poll a quick SMS order for the incoming verification code.' It uses a specific verb ('poll') and identifies the resource ('quick SMS order'). It also explains the workflow after polling, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_sms_rental_messages by focusing on verification codes and the order lifecycle.
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 provides explicit usage context: 'Call every 15-30 seconds after order_sms_verification until status is "received"'. It also mentions the auto-refund timeout and the need for a connected agent wallet. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools (e.g., get_sms_rental_messages), so it lacks direct alternative exclusion.
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.
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'.
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.
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).
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.