Get full details for a specific plan (data eSIM OR phone-number eSIM): coverage, data, voice/SMS allowance, duration, price, networks, and purchase URL. Accepts the packageCode shown in [brackets] by the search tools.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| packageCode | Yes | Package code from a search result (e.g., CKH001 for data, change-plus-7days-1gb for a phone plan) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the types of details returned and the source of packageCode, but does not disclose error behavior, rate limits, or other operational traits. It does not contradict 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and key output fields, 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?
For a simple single-parameter detail tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently lists the returned aspects and the input source. It could explicitly mention handling of invalid codes or differentiate from pricing tools, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.
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 the packageCode parameter already well-documented with examples. The description adds slight context about the bracket format from search tools, but this is marginal over the schema, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full details for a specific plan'), explicitly listing coverage, data, voice/SMS allowance, duration, price, networks, and purchase URL. It also distinguishes itself from sibling search tools by noting it accepts the packageCode shown in [brackets] by those search tools.
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?
It implies usage after obtaining a packageCode from search tools, giving clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, stopping short of a 5.
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.