Hồ sơ tài khoản MONA Pay

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It signals a read-only retrieval via 'Lấy/Get', and 'đang đăng nhập / current' indicates it acts on the authenticated session. It does not detail error or edge-case behavior, but the operation is simple enough that this is adequate.

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 one short bilingual sentence, front-loads the action and resource, and includes a parenthetical field list without padding. Every part earns its place.

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, low-complexity profile lookup with no output schema, the description is adequately complete: it names the resource, scope, and key return fields. It could mention authentication failure handling, but the context signals do not suggest a need.

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 parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify beyond the schema; the baseline for a 0-parameter tool is 4. The description additionally clarifies the fields that will be returned, which is useful given the absence of an output schema.

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 the specific verb 'Lấy/Get' with a clear resource: the current MONA Pay client profile, and lists the returned fields (id, name, status). This is distinct from all sibling tools, which operate on bank accounts, QR codes, transactions, webhooks, and keys.

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 clearly scopes this tool to retrieving the currently logged-in MONA Pay account profile, so an agent knows when to select it. It does not explicitly discuss exclusions or alternatives, but the resource-level clarity is sufficient given the sibling names.

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