Danh sách tài khoản ngân hàng đã nối

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Liệt kê' implies a read-only enumeration, but the description does not explicitly state that the operation has no side effects, what it returns, or whether any authentication/authorization constraints apply beyond MONA Pay linkage.

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 minimal and front-loaded with the action and resource. The bilingual phrasing adds a little length but does not introduce filler or ambiguity.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool, the description provides enough context to invoke it correctly: it names the resource, the platform, and the operation. The main gap is the absence of an output schema means the description could be slightly more explicit about the returned account fields, but this does not prevent correct invocation.

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 input schema has zero properties and 100% description coverage, so there are no parameters to explain. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool; the description correctly implies that no inputs are required.

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, 'Liệt kê' (list), and a specific resource: bank accounts linked to MONA Pay. It is specific enough to distinguish this tool from siblings like monapay_list_virtual_accounts, monapay_list_transactions, and monapay_link_bank_start. The 'ACB…' example reinforces that these are real connected bank accounts.

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 gives clear context: use this tool to retrieve bank accounts already linked to MONA Pay. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the resource scope is clear enough for a simple zero-parameter listing operation.

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