Bắn webhook thử

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond them — that the payload is a dummy/is_dummy transaction, so no real money moves — and that signature verification is part of the flow. It says nothing about auth requirements (auth_type/secret_key usage), rate limits, or whether the send is logged.

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?

Very short and front-loaded: the action and its purpose come first with zero filler. The bilingual duplication doubles the text without adding information, which is the only mild inefficiency.

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 low-complexity test-send tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description conveys what happens but omits what the caller gets back — relevant since there is no output schema — and leaves the parameter set under-explained. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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%: webhook_url carries 'Bỏ trống = dùng config đã lưu' while auth_type and secret_key are undocumented. The description only gestures at 'URL' and 'chữ ký' (signature), adding essentially no syntax, format, or interaction detail to 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?

States a specific verb and resource — sends a dummy webhook (giao dịch giả, is_dummy) to a URL — plus its purpose: testing the endpoint and signature. This functionally separates it from siblings like monapay_create_webhook and monapay_verify_signature, though it never names or explicitly contrasts with them.

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 stated purpose ('để kiểm tra endpoint + chữ ký' / to test the endpoint and signature) implies when the tool is used, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g., monapay_verify_signature or monapay_webhook_logs). Usage is only implied.

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