monapay_whoamiVerify MONA Pay client credentials and return the connected account name and current plan to confirm integration status before handling payments.
Xác nhận client credentials đang hoạt động, trả tên tài khoản và gói hiện tại. / Verify connection and return account name and plan.
| 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 that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive open-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it validates client credentials and returns the account name and current plan, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not disclose authentication requirements beyond 'client credentials' or any rate-limit/response-shape details.
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 two short clauses in Vietnamese and English, front-loading the verification purpose and then the return values. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or padded language.
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 zero-parameter diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it says what it verifies and what it returns. It could be slightly stronger by naming return fields more precisely or by noting that no input is required, but nothing critical 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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool has a baseline of 4; the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.
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 specific action ('verify connection') and specific return values ('account name and plan'), so it is not a tautology. However, it does not differentiate this tool from related siblings such as monapay_me or cloud_whoami, so it falls short of the sibling-aware clarity that would earn a 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 phrase 'Verify connection' implies the tool is used when a caller wants to check whether MONA Pay client credentials are working, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus monapay_me or other diagnostics. No exclusions or alternative selection guidance are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.