Kiểm tra kết nối MONA Pay

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It states that the tool confirms active credentials and returns account name and plan, which conveys the read-only, informational nature of the operation. It does not elaborate on error behavior or auth context, but for a simple whoami tool the core behavior is adequately disclosed.

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 two short sentences covering both Vietnamese and English, with no wasted words. It front-loads the key action and the expected return values, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simple, zero-parameter whoami tool, the description is complete: it states the purpose, the verification behavior, and the returned information. There is no output schema, but the description explicitly names what will be returned, so an agent has enough context to invoke and interpret the tool 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are inherently simple. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning because none is needed; the schema already covers everything. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this is appropriately handled.

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 clearly states the specific action: verify that client credentials are working and return the account name and current plan. It is specific about both the operation and the resource, making it easy to distinguish from the broader sibling set.

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 explicitly frames the tool as a connection/credential verification action, which gives clear context for when to call it. It does not explicitly name alternatives like cloud_whoami or monapay_me, but for a zero-parameter whoami-style tool the usage context is sufficiently clear.

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