Liên kết MONA Cloud chuyển tiếp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact — the vc_live token conversion only happens while the upstream is in legacy mode — which reveals state-dependent behavior. But it never states whether the operation mutates state, is idempotent, requires a prior link to exist, or what the caller receives in return.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler: the core confirmation action appears first and the conditional behavior follows. The density of unexplained domain jargon slightly hurts readability, but structurally it is tight and every clause earns its place.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description must fully explain invocation expectations — and it does not. An agent cannot determine what MONA Pass or vc_live token are, what 'upstream old mode' refers to, whether this is a read or write operation, or what a successful call yields. The presence of near-named siblings with no differentiation widens the gap further.

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 declares zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100% and there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning. The baseline of 4 for 0-parameter tools applies; no parameter guidance is needed or missing.

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 does use a specific verb ('Xác nhận' / confirm) and names a concrete resource (MONA Cloud compute receiving MONA Pass), plus a conditional conversion behavior, so it is not a tautology. However, the core terms — 'MONA Pass,' 'vc_live token,' 'upstream,' and 'chế độ cũ' — are unexplained jargon that an agent cannot reliably resolve. It also gives no hint of how this differs from the similarly named siblings monapay_link and vibecloud_link.

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 only conditional in the text ('chỉ đổi thành vc_live token khi upstream còn ở chế độ cũ') describes an internal behavioral branch, not when the agent should call this tool. There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, exclusions, or any routing guidance between cloud_link, monapay_link, and vibecloud_link, so the agent is left to guess.

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