monapay_verify_signatureVerify MONA Pay webhook signatures locally using HMAC-SHA256 from raw body, timestamp, and secret. No network calls.
Tính và so chữ ký HMAC-SHA256 của một webhook MONA Pay từ raw body + timestamp + secret, không gọi mạng. / Verify a webhook signature locally.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| secret | Yes | ||
| raw_body | Yes | ||
| signature | Yes | ||
| timestamp | Yes | ||
| tolerance_sec | No | ||
| skip_time_check | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.11.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that this is a pure local HMAC-SHA256 computation with no network call. It does not disclose the timestamp-tolerance checking that the tolerance_sec and skip_time_check parameters imply. Note a mild tension: openWorldHint=true against an explicitly offline/local operation, though this reads as a mis-tag rather than a functional contradiction.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and algorithm, with no filler. The bilingual format doubles length but serves its audience and stays tight.
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?
Shorter answer: with no output schema, the agent never learns what verification returns (boolean, match/mismatch string, or error) or how tolerance failures are surfaced, and 0% schema coverage leaves the two time-related parameters undefined. Those are meaningful gaps for a signature-verification tool.
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%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It names raw_body, timestamp, and secret as the computation inputs, but says nothing about signature (the value compared) and entirely omits tolerance_sec and skip_time_check, whose units, defaults, and effect are non-obvious. Half the parameters remain semantically unexplained.
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 gives a specific verb (compute/compare) and resource (HMAC-SHA256 webhook signature) plus the exact inputs used (raw body + timestamp + secret) and that it runs offline. It is far more specific than a tautology and an agent can tell what it does. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from the sibling monapay_generate_webhook_snippet, so it isn't a full 5.
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 'không gọi mạng / locally' phrasing implies usage context (local verification without a callback), which is a reasonable hint. However, there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative among the many monapay_* and webhook siblings. Usage remains implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.