Tra giao dịch tiền vào

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavior: filtering by virtual account, pagination capped at 100 per page, and incoming-only scope. But it omits ordering of results, whether pending/failed transactions are included, and any read-only guarantee — details that matter for a reconciliation workflow.

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 Vietnamese sentence is efficient and front-loaded with verb+resource+scope, with every clause earning its place. The trailing English fragment 'List incoming transactions' adds nothing beyond the title and is mild redundancy, preventing a 5.

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 3-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: what is listed, the required filter, the pagination cap, and the reconciliation use case. Gaps remain: no indication of return shape, no transaction-status semantics, and no disambiguation from monapay_list_checkouts, which an agent might confuse it with.

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 virtual_account_number is documented), so the description must compensate. The pagination clause ('phân trang tối đa 100/trang') explains the limit/page semantics beyond the bare schema, but it does not explicitly define what 'page' means or how results are ordered, and it partly duplicates the schema's maximum:100 constraint.

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), a concrete resource (incoming transactions — 'giao dịch tiền vào'), and the scoping dimension (by virtual account). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like monapay_list_checkouts and monapay_list_webhooks without needing to open the schema. It falls short of 5 because it never names a sibling to contrast against.

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 'dùng để đối soát' (used for reconciliation) provides an explicit use case, which is genuine context an agent can act on. However, there is no guidance on when NOT to use it or which alternative to choose (e.g., monapay_list_checkouts for order-facing transactions), leaving selection among the many monapay list_* tools to inference.

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