Tra giao dịch tiền vào

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the incoming-transaction scope and pagination cap ('tối đa 100/trang'), and 'Liệt kê' implies a read operation. However, it does not mention response shape, ordering, date behavior, or error conditions.

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 compact and front-loads the core behavior and pagination constraint. The English translation duplicates the Vietnamese but is reasonably helpful, and there is no fluff, though a more structured usage line could add value.

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 list operation, the description is enough to invoke the tool with the required `virtual_account_number`, and pagination constraints are present. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it omits return fields, ordering/filter behavior, and explicit alternative routing, leaving gaps the agent would have to discover.

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%, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters. It restates the virtual-account filter and pagination limit, but does not explain the meaning or interaction of `page` and `limit` beyond what their names and schema constraints already show.

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 operation: list incoming transactions filtered by virtual account ('Liệt kê giao dịch tiền vào theo tài khoản ảo') and adds the reconciliation use case. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like monapay_list_virtual_accounts, monapay_list_bank_accounts, and QR/webhook tools.

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 provides a use case, 'dùng để đối soát' (for reconciliation), which gives some context for when to call it. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or compare against related transaction tools such as monapay_retry_transaction, so the agent must infer boundaries.

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