PikaSim

create_deposit

Creates a payment invoice to add funds to the connected prepaid PikaSim Wallet, and returns a payment page link (the human can pay by card with 3D Secure, or crypto) plus per-coin crypto payment details. Accepts Bitcoin, Lightning, Monero, Zcash, USDT, and 50+ altcoins, or card on the payment page. Does not move funds itself; it returns an invoice the user pays externally, and the balance updates once the payment confirms. Use when check_balance is too low to purchase. Minimum deposit is $1 (no prepaid float required). A fully-autonomous agent holding crypto can pay WITHOUT a human: the tool returns native destinations for Lightning, Bitcoin on-chain, USDT (TRC-20/Tron), and Monero — pay the amount to any one of them. Crypto has no fee; card payments add a 2.9% processing fee on top of the credited amount. Balance is prepaid credit for purchases on PikaSim, never expires, and is not redeemable for cash. Requires a connected agent wallet (OAuth or ak_live_ key).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`amount`	Yes	Amount in whole US dollars to CREDIT to the wallet (minimum 1; e.g. 25 for a $25 deposit)

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the minimal annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false). It discloses that the tool does not move funds itself, payments happen externally, balance updates upon confirmation, fees for card payments, wallet properties (non-expiring, not redeemable), and authentication requirements. 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is relatively long but every sentence carries substantive information (payment methods, autonomous agent usage, fees, wallet properties). It is well-structured and front-loaded, but could be slightly more concise; still efficient for the complexity.

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?

For a financial tool with no output schema, the description comprehensively covers prerequisites (connected agent wallet, OAuth or ak_live_ key), payment instructions, fees, deposit minimum, and what happens after payment. It also distinguishes from sibling tools clearly. No significant gaps.

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 provides 100% coverage for the sole parameter (amount), including type, minimum, and an example. The description repeats 'Minimum deposit is $1' but adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states. Therefore, the description adds minimal value over the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('Creates a payment invoice to add funds') and resource (PikaSim Wallet). It distinguishes itself from siblings like check_balance and create_wallet by describing the deposit-specific function and return value (payment page link and per-coin crypto details).

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly says 'Use when check_balance is too low to purchase', giving a direct usage condition. It also describes two usage scenarios (human payment via card/crypto and autonomous agent paying crypto), further clarifying when to invoke it.

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?