monapay_webhook_statsRetrieve delivery stats for MONA Pay webhooks—success rate, P95 latency, and error classifications—to monitor payment notifications and diagnose failures.
Tỷ lệ thành công, P95, phân loại lỗi. / Webhook delivery stats.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds what metrics are returned, but no other behavioral traits like time range, scope, or rate limits are mentioned; with annotations present, 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?
The description is very short and front-loads the key metrics. The bilingual phrasing repeats the same meaning, which is slightly redundant but still efficient overall.
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?
Given the simple, parameterless nature of the tool and the presence of annotations covering safety, the description provides enough to understand what is returned. It omits time scope or default period, but that is a minor gap for a stats summary 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?
There are no parameters, so the schema provides no parameter semantics. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4, and no further parameter detail is expected or needed.
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 names the resource (webhook) and the specific metrics returned (success rate, P95, error classification), making the tool's purpose clear. It distinguishes from siblings like monapay_webhook_logs or monapay_list_webhooks by being a stats summary, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as monapay_webhook_logs or monapay_test_webhook. The description merely states what data is returned, leaving the agent to infer context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.