Get the USD price for a specific plan (data eSIM OR phone-number eSIM). Accepts the packageCode from any search result.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| currency | No | Currency code (currently only USD supported) | |
| packageCode | Yes | Package code (data or phone plan) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description only needs to add context. It adds the USD currency restriction and the plan type scope, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as rate limits or error handling. This is acceptable for a simple read operation.
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 concise sentences that immediately state the purpose and input source. No redundant words or repetition of schema details.
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 2-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the action, input, and scope. It does not explicitly describe the return value, but that is implied by 'get price' and there is no output schema to elaborate. Could be slightly more explicit about currency support, but that is already in the schema.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by explaining that packageCode comes from any search result and that the plan can be either a data eSIM or phone-number eSIM, which supplements the schema's generic description.
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 identifies the tool's function: retrieving the USD price for a specific plan, and explicitly scopes it to both data eSIMs and phone-number eSIMs. It also notes the input source (packageCode from search results), which distinguishes it from related pricing 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?
The description implies usage when you have a packageCode from a search result, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_phone_plan_pricing or get_package_details. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.
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.