Liên kết MONA Pay chuyển tiếp

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds useful side-effect context (local caching) and a temporary-workaround note, but it does not explain what credential is stored, what happens on repeated calls, or permission/auth requirements beyond the implied MONA Pass exchange.

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 dense sentence with no wasted words, front-loaded with the core action ('Tạm đổi MONA Pass thành client credential MONA Pay và cache cục bộ'). The semicolon delivers the deprecation caveat efficiently, though the phrasing is somewhat cryptic and implementation-centric.

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 zero-parameter linking tool with no output schema, the description covers the mechanism and a lifecycle note, but it omits when-to-use context and what the calling agent should expect afterward (e.g., that the cached credential enables subsequent MONA Pay calls). This leaves a moderate gap for correct invocation.

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 has zero parameters and full schema coverage, so there is nothing for the description to document. The baseline of 4 applies; the description neither needs nor attempts to add parameter meaning.

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 concrete verb+resource: temporarily exchanging a MONA Pass for a MONA Pay client credential and caching it locally. This is specific enough for an agent to know it is a credential-linking operation, but it does not differentiate itself from related siblings such as monapay_link_bank_start or cloud_link/vibecloud_link, and it describes implementation mechanics rather than the user-facing task.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to invoke this tool, what prerequisites exist (e.g., needing a MONA Pass), or which sibling to use instead. The only conditional clause is a deprecation note ('bỏ khi MONA Pay nhận JWT trực tiếp'), which does not help an agent decide when to call it now.

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