monapay_list_virtual_accountsList virtual accounts for a specified bank account UUID to support payment reconciliation and account management.
Liệt kê tài khoản ảo thuộc một tài khoản ngân hàng. / List virtual accounts of a bank account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bank_account_id | Yes | UUID tài khoản ngân hàng (lấy từ monapay_list_bank_accounts) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.11.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral context of its own — nothing about pagination, ordering, whether results can be empty, or the openWorldHint implications — so it earns little beyond the structured metadata.
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?
Extremely brief and front-loaded, with the purpose stated immediately. The bilingual duplication is slightly redundant but standard for this catalog and costs nothing in clarity.
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-only list tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the definition is minimally sufficient. With no output schema, it could usefully say what each virtual account contains or how results are ordered, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.
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 100% and the single parameter's UUID semantics plus its source tool are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Liệt kê' / 'List') and resource ('tài khoản ảo' / 'virtual accounts') scoped to a bank account, so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from any sibling, but no sibling covers virtual-account listing, so differentiation is implicit.
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 no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites beyond the implicit need for a bank_account_id, and names no alternatives. An agent must infer that this is the retrieval step after monapay_list_bank_accounts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.