Gửi lại thông báo của một giao dịch

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, signalling a non-idempotent write-side action. The description adds that a webhook or Telegram message is re-sent, which is useful context, but it says nothing about duplicate delivery, rate limits, or whether the underlying transaction is re-processed. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two short sentences with the key action front-loaded. The Vietnamese and English lines are exact duplicates, which is mildly redundant, but the overall text is compact and wastes little space.

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 non-idempotent action tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description leaves too much unstated: what target_id refers to, expected delivery outcome, and how it differs from webhook test/log tools. An agent could call it but with little confidence about effects.

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 0%, and the description only maps loosely to target_type by naming 'webhook hoặc Telegram'. The required transaction_id and the target_id parameter are left unexplained, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 verb and resource ('re-send webhook or Telegram for a transaction') and implies an existing transaction. However, the tool name 'retry_transaction' suggests reprocessing a payment, while the description only says the notification is re-sent, leaving a semantic tension an agent must resolve. No sibling differentiation is provided.

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?

It scopes usage to 'giao dịch đã có' (an existing transaction) but gives no when-to-use versus alternatives. Adjacent tools such as monapay_test_webhook, monapay_webhook_logs and monapay_list_transactions are never referenced, so an agent has no routing guidance.

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