monapay_get_payment_profileFetch the hosted-checkout payment profile to get shop name, identity, and the default account used for checkout.
Lấy tên shop, nhận diện và tài khoản mặc định dùng cho trang thanh toán. / Get the hosted-checkout payment profile.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.11.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint false). The description adds that it returns shop name, identification, and default account, which is useful return content but does not provide deeper behavioral context like auth requirements or rate limits.
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 short sentences (bilingual), front-loading the more detailed Vietnamese version. The English sentence is somewhat redundant but overall the structure is concise and front-loaded.
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 read tool with no parameters and full annotation coverage, the description provides enough context about what is returned (shop name, identification, default account). However, it lacks details on possible auth needs or output format beyond field names.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description does not need to compensate for parameter documentation.
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-resource pair: it retrieves the shop name, identification, and default account for the hosted-checkout payment profile. It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like monapay_set_payment_profile.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or point to related tools such as monapay_set_payment_profile.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.