Search the PikaSim eSIM catalog (data eSIMs and phone-number eSIMs) by free-text query and/or ISO country code. Returns a list of matching plans, each with an id, a title (name + price), and a pikasim.com URL. Pass an id to the fetch tool for full details. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Free-text search, may include a country name and/or ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code (e.g. "Japan 10GB", "US phone plan", "DE") |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only.' Beyond that, it discloses the return format (list with id, title, URL) and the follow-up action to fetch full details, which is valuable behavioral context not present in structured fields.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds meaningful information: scope, return format, and next step. No redundancy or filler.
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 search tool with one parameter, good annotations, and no output schema, the description fully specifies the return format and how to proceed with the returned ids. It is complete for an agent to correctly invoke and use the tool.
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's query parameter already has a detailed description covering free-text and ISO country code examples (100% coverage). The tool description adds little beyond the schema for this parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 searches the PikaSim eSIM catalog explicitly covering both data eSIMs and phone-number eSIMs, and lists the return fields (id, title, URL). This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_esim_packages or search_phone_plans.
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 clear context: it's a general catalog search covering both eSIM types, and it directs the agent to pass an id to the fetch tool for full details. It doesn't explicitly name alternative search tools or say when not to use it, but the scope statement implicitly differentiates it from more specific siblings.
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.