monapay_get_payment_profileRetrieve the hosted-checkout payment profile, which provides shop name, identification, and default account for payment pages.
Lấy tên shop, nhận diện và tài khoản mặc định dùng cho trang thanh toán. / Get the hosted-checkout payment profile.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. The word 'Get' clearly signals a read operation and the returned fields are listed, but it does not explicitly confirm absence of side effects, authentication needs, or error/empty-result behavior.
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 compact: one Vietnamese sentence with useful field details and one short English equivalent. There is no filler, and the key information is front-loaded.
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 zero-input getter with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it names the resource and the returned fields. It could add minor context such as how this profile relates to monapay_set_payment_profile, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.
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 has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is required. The description adds context about what the result contains, which is enough for a parameterless getter.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the exact resource ('hosted-checkout payment profile'), while the Vietnamese text adds the returned fields: shop name, identification, and default account. This clearly differentiates it from related siblings like monapay_set_payment_profile.
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 verb 'Get' implies this tool should be used when the agent needs to read the current hosted-checkout payment profile. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention the setter sibling, leaving usage context mostly implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.