Tra giao dịch tiền vào

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the pagination cap ('tối đa 100/trang'), which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about return shape or ordering.

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 short two-clause sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded; the bilingual duplication is slightly redundant but harmless. Every clause carries 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?

For a read-only list tool with full safety annotations and no output schema, the description covers resource, scope, and pagination. The only gap is the absence of any detail on what a transaction record contains, which is minor given there is no output schema to anchor it.

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 33% (only virtual_account_number is documented, pointing to monapay_list_virtual_accounts). The description reinforces the limit ceiling ('tối đa 100/trang') but leaves 'page' semantics and ordering unexplained, so it only partially compensates for the low coverage.

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: 'Liệt kê giao dịch tiền vào' (list incoming transactions) scoped 'theo tài khoản ảo' (by virtual account). This clearly separates it from sibling list tools like monapay_list_checkouts or monapay_list_virtual_accounts, though it never names an alternative to distinguish against.

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?

'dùng để đối soát' (used for reconciliation) implies the intended use case, which is genuine context. However, it gives no when-not conditions, no prerequisites, and no explicit alternatives among the many monapay list siblings.

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