Tra 1 giao dich theo ma don hoac ID

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that only incoming (credit) transactions are returned and that lookup is scoped to a virtual account, but says nothing about behavior when no match is found, auth requirements, or return shape.

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?

Purpose and use case are front-loaded in the first clause. The Vietnamese and English halves duplicate the same content rather than extending it, which is mild redundancy but keeps the definition short and scannable.

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 two-parameter read tool, the description covers purpose, scope, and usage intent. With no output schema, it could say more about the returned fields, but the verb 'get' plus the incoming-transaction scope make the result predictable enough to call correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the DH10234 example. The description's mention of 'ma don' and 'trong mot tai khoan ao' adds only marginal framing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (get/find) and resource (one incoming transaction) and scopes it by transaction_code or id within a virtual account. The singular 'one incoming transaction' distinguishes it from monapay_list_transactions, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

Gives a concrete use case — 'use to check whether order X has been paid yet' — which tells the agent when this tool applies. However it offers no exclusions or alternative routing (e.g., when to prefer list_transactions or get_transactions_summary).

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