Bắn webhook thử

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the webhook is fake and that the purpose is endpoint/signature testing, but it omits important behavioral details such as how auth_type and secret_key affect the request, what side effects occur, and what success/failure looks like.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the core mechanism and purpose, and every part adds useful context beyond the title.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and limited schema descriptions, the description supplies only the high-level purpose. An agent still lacks key context about how the three parameters work together, what the HTTP request will look like, and what response or error behavior to expect.

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%, with only webhook_url having an explanation. The tool description does not explain the roles of auth_type or secret_key, their relationship to signature testing, or how they interact with webhook_url. The enum values are self-explanatory, but the description should have compensated for the low schema coverage and did not.

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 clearly states that MONA Pay sends a dummy transaction marked is_dummy to a URL to test the endpoint and signature. It identifies a specific verb, resource, and expected validation scenario, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like verify_signature or create_webhook.

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 explicitly gives the use case: testing an endpoint and signature. It does not name alternatives or explicitly say when not to use it, but the intended context is clear enough to guide selection.

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