monapay_list_virtual_accountsLists virtual accounts linked to a specified bank account ID, helping you manage sub-accounts and verify payment routing.
Liệt kê tài khoản ảo thuộc một tài khoản ngân hàng. / List virtual accounts of a bank account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bank_account_id | Yes | UUID tài khoản ngân hàng (lấy từ monapay_list_bank_accounts) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'List' clearly signals a read-only, non-destructive operation, which is the most important behavior. However, it does not mention pagination, response format, authentication requirements, or any limitations such as whether the result is ordered or capped.
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 a single bilingual sentence with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the verb and resource, and the English version clarifies the Vietnamese without adding unnecessary length.
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 tool with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states the action, the resource, and the scope. The only minor gap is the absence of any comment about result shape or pagination, but the low complexity of this list operation makes that a small omission.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents bank_account_id, including where to obtain it from monapay_list_bank_accounts. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?
The description states a specific verb ('List') and a precise resource ('virtual accounts of a bank account'), making the operation immediately identifiable. It inherently distinguishes this tool from sibling list operations such as monapay_list_bank_accounts by making clear it lists virtual accounts scoped to a bank account, not bank accounts themselves.
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 description implies the use case: when an agent needs virtual accounts belonging to a specific bank account. The parameter schema additionally points the agent to monapay_list_bank_accounts as the source of bank_account_id, which helps with prerequisites, but the description itself gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.