Monobank public key

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what the response contains (key, key id, server time) and its role in webhook verification. It does not disclose additional behaviors like authentication requirements or rate limits, but the read-only nature is already signaled.

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 long, free of fluff, and front-loads the key resource details before explaining the purpose. Every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the burden of explaining what the tool returns and why it is useful. It enumerates the key, key id, and server time, and relates them to webhook verification. This is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role, though a bit more detail on the response structure could improve completeness.

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 there is nothing for the description to clarify. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and no additional parameter information is needed here.

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 resource being fetched: the public signing key, its key id, and server time. It also states the purpose of verifying webhook signatures, which helps distinguish it from siblings like set_webhook or get_statement. However, it lacks an explicit action verb, relying on the tool name for the 'get' semantics.

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 phrase 'Used to verify webhook signatures' implies a concrete use case for the tool. It does not explicitly describe when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it list exclusions or conditions. This is implied guidance rather than explicit routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.