Code mẫu nhận webhook

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose that the output is a code sample for an endpoint plus HMAC verification and a sample payload, which is useful. It does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects, does not register a webhook, or does not make network calls, though 'snippet' implies this.

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 short, front-loaded with the action ('Trả code mẫu'), and packs output, validation logic, languages, and sample payload into one sentence. The trailing English clause is mostly redundant with the Vietnamese text but not harmful.

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 single-parameter code-generation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains the return content well enough: endpoint code, HMAC verification, languages, and sample payload. It could add an explicit note that no webhook is actually created or configured, but 'snippet' conveys that.

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 description mentions 'PHP / Node / Python', matching the language parameter's enum values, so an agent can infer what to pass. However, this adds little beyond the schema, which already enumerates the allowed values, and there is no additional detail about defaults, formats, or requirements.

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 ('Trả'/'Get') and names the resource: a webhook receiver snippet with HMAC verification and sample payload for PHP/Node/Python. It clearly differentiates this code-generation tool from sibling operations like create_webhook or verify_signature, which perform live actions.

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 intended use is implied: call this when the user needs webhook receiver code in one of the listed languages. However, it never explicitly states when not to use it or names alternatives such as monapay_create_webhook for actual registration or monapay_verify_signature for runtime signature checks.

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