Thiết lập hồ sơ trang thanh toán

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It does disclose one genuinely useful behavior: the redirect signing secret is returned by the API only once. But for a 15-parameter mutation tool it omits auth/permission requirements, whether unspecified fields are cleared on update, and the response 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and its timing, and the secret caveat is appended where it matters. The Vietnamese/English duplication is the only padding, but it serves the bilingual audience.

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?

Given 15 parameters, 0 required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too thin. It never clarifies which fields are needed for a first-time create versus an update, nor what the one-time secret return means operationally for the caller.

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 only 7% (just logo_url), and there are 15 parameters. The description groups them conceptually (name, identity, default receiving account) but explains none of the individual fields such as merchant_id, terminal_id, va_prefix, owner_type, or the two default account IDs, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 pair ('create or update') and resource ('hosted-checkout payment profile'), and enumerates the conceptual contents (shop name, identity, default receiving account). The upsert framing distinguishes it from the sibling monapay_get_payment_profile, though that contrast is only implicit.

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?

'trước khi tạo checkout' / before creating checkout gives timing context that implies when to reach for this tool. However, no alternative is named, no when-not guidance is offered, and it never states what prerequisites (e.g. linked bank account) must exist first.

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