Công cụ MONA base credentials

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, but the description adds the critical behavioral fact that the returned values are secrets that must not be logged and should go straight into a secret store or uncommitted .env. That is meaningful disclosure beyond the structured hints, and it does not contradict them.

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 alias identity is front-loaded, which is good, but the content is duplicated verbatim in Vietnamese and English, roughly doubling the length without adding information. The trailing 'shared MONA Cloud account and wallet' sentence is tangential to invoking the tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description does cover the return payload (anon_key, service_key, db_url) and secret-handling, which is helpful. However it omits any meaning for the required base_id and gives no guidance on failure cases, leaving a real gap for a 1-param credential-reveal 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 is a single required parameter (base_id) with 0% schema description coverage and no enum, and the description never explains what base_id refers to or its format. With no schema-level documentation, the description is expected to compensate but instead says nothing about the parameter.

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 tool as a compatibility alias of cloud_base_credentials and states the specific resources it reads (anon_key, service_key, db_url), so an agent knows exactly what it does and can distinguish it from the real cloud_base_credentials. The 'Beta Supabase replacement' framing is extra context but the core verb+resource is clear.

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 implies usage via the alias relationship ('compatibility alias of cloud_base_credentials'), so an agent can infer it's interchangeable with the canonical tool, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this alias over cloud_base_credentials. The only concrete guidance is post-invocation handling (keep secret, store in secret store or uncommitted .env).

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