Bắn webhook thử

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently reveals that a fake transaction (is_dummy) is sent to the URL and that the goal is endpoint/signature testing. However, it does not mention whether the test creates logs, whether it requires a saved webhook config, what side effects occur on MONA Pay, or what the caller receives back.

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 one compact sentence with the core purpose front-loaded. The English translation 'Send a dummy webhook' is largely redundant, but it does not add significant noise. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward test action.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should indicate what result the agent can expect—such as HTTP status, delivery success, or signature validation outcome. It does not. It also leaves the roles of auth_type, secret_key, and the saved-config fallback to the schema, making invocation details under-specified.

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 33%: only webhook_url has a description, and it is in Vietnamese. auth_type and secret_key are undocumented in both the schema and the tool description; the agent can only infer they relate to signing from the signature-testing phrase. With low schema coverage, the description needed to explain these parameters but did not.

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 action: MONA Pay sends a dummy webhook (is_dummy) to a URL to verify the endpoint and chữ ký (signature). This clearly identifies the resource and purpose. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools such as monapay_sandbox_transaction or monapay_verify_signature, so it stops one step 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?

The phrase 'để kiểm tra endpoint + chữ ký' gives an explicit use context: use this tool when you need to test whether a webhook endpoint receives and validates signatures. It does not mention exclusions or name alternative tools, but the scene is clear enough for an agent to decide when this tool fits.

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