List this wallet's SMS orders — quick verification orders (with their Order IDs) and long-term rentals (with their receipt IDs, numbers, and expiry dates). Read-only. Use it to re-find an order ID or check what is still active. Requires a connected agent wallet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces 'Read-only.' It adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations, such as requiring a connected agent wallet and the exact types of data returned for each order category, which helps set expectations for the agent.
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 tightly written in two sentences: the first explains what the tool lists and the fields returned, the second gives usage context and a prerequisite. No redundant words or filler, every sentence earns its place.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers the return values by specifying the included data (Order IDs, receipt IDs, numbers, expiry dates). It also conveys the read-only nature, usage purpose, and wallet requirement, making it self-sufficient for an agent.
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?
The input schema has zero parameters, so the description has no parameter semantics to clarify. According to the rubric, a 0-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any schema coverage gaps.
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 ('List this wallet's SMS orders') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes between quick verification orders and long-term rentals, and provides specific details about the returned identifiers (Order IDs, receipt IDs, numbers, expiry dates), setting it apart from sibling tools like list_orders and list_sms_rentals.
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 a concrete use case ('re-find an order ID or check what is still active') and a prerequisite ('Requires a connected agent wallet'). While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or exclusionary conditions, the context is clear enough for an agent to determine when this tool is appropriate.
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.