Chi phí MONA Cloud theo kỳ

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and idempotency profile is covered. The description adds that the result is usage plus total money grouped by month and filterable by product, but says nothing about pagination, result size, or data freshness. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity is what forces the gaps in other dimensions rather than being a structural flaw.

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 low-complexity two-parameter read tool whose annotations cover the safety profile, the description is adequate but not complete: it omits the required period format and does not help the agent distinguish this cost-read tool from the many other cloud_* cost and ledger siblings. No output schema exists, so return values also go unexplained.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does reference both parameters implicitly: 'theo tháng' maps to the required period and 'lọc sản phẩm' maps to the optional product filter. However, it omits the crucial YYYY-MM format enforced by the period pattern, so compensation is only partial.

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 states a specific verb and resource: read ('Đọc') usage and total amount ('tổng tiền') on a monthly basis. It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not differentiate itself from closely related siblings like cloud_balance, cloud_ledger, or cloud_invoice_list, which also deal with cost data.

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 only usage hint is 'có thể lọc sản phẩm' (can filter by product), which implies an optional filter but gives no when-to-use guidance or contrast with alternatives. Nothing tells the agent when to pick this over cloud_balance or cloud_ledger.

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