Tạo link thu tiền

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral detail (the CHECKOUT_PAID confirmation gate before fulfilment) but omits auth requirements, expiry behavior and what the returned artifact is, so it goes only modestly beyond the annotations.

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 core action is front-loaded and each language version is short, but the description is bilingual and therefore states everything twice. For an agent reading one language the duplication dilutes rather than adds value.

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 12-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description conveys the purpose and the critical post-creation webhook step but leaves the returned value (the checkout URL), auth requirements, sandbox interplay and most parameter meanings unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 description coverage is only 25% across 12 parameters, so the description carries most of the burden — yet it mentions no parameters at all. The amount/sandbox/idempotency hints live only in the schema (and in Vietnamese), and the description does not compensate for the many undocumented fields.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a hosted checkout link') plus the follow-up workflow (hand link to customer / redirect to checkout). It is clear, but it never explicitly distinguishes this from sibling monapay_create_qr or monapay_get_checkout, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 gives a workflow condition ('wait for CHECKOUT_PAID before fulfilment') but no guidance on when to choose this over alternatives such as create_qr or create_webhook. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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