Danh sách phiên thanh toán

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, yet it only restates the filter dimensions already visible in the parameter names. It does not disclose pagination defaults, result ordering, whether from_date/to_date are inclusive, timezone handling, or what happens when filters are omitted — key unknowns for a fully-optional-parameter list tool.

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 starting with the verb, with no filler. The only mild inefficiency is that the Vietnamese and English halves partially duplicate each other, though each contributes one distinct piece ('filter dimensions' in Vietnamese, 'hosted' qualifier in English).

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?

This tool has no output schema, no annotations, and zero parameter documentation, making the description the sole documentation; it does not cover the response shape, pagination defaults, or filter semantics. An agent would understand what the tool does but not what to expect back or how optional filters behave when omitted.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description is the only semantic layer for the parameters and it maps each parameter cluster to a concept: trạng thái→status, mã đơn→order_code, khoảng ngày→from_date/to_date, phân trang→page/limit. However, it adds no depth beyond these labels — no default values, no date-format or range-boundary semantics, and no note on how filters combine.

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 uses a specific verb ('Liệt kê' / 'List') with a clear resource ('hosted checkouts') and enumerates the filter dimensions: status, order code, date range, and pagination. The 'list' verb and 'hosted checkouts' qualifier distinguish it from siblings such as monapay_get_checkout (single retrieval), monapay_create_checkout, monapay_cancel_checkout, and other resource-different list tools (transactions, webhooks, 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 tool's role as a list/filter operation is implied by the description, and the listed filter dimensions give context for when it applies (finding checkouts by status, order code, or date). However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling to prefer instead — e.g., monapay_list_transactions for payment transaction history or monapay_get_checkout for a single checkout.

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