Kiểm chữ ký webhook (offline)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool is local, makes no network call, and computes/compares HMAC-SHA256 signatures. But it does not explain the default time-tolerance behavior, what happens on invalid signatures, or the return value contract.

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 a compact bilingual one-liner with the key action and inputs front-loaded. The Vietnamese/English restatement is slightly redundant but improves accessibility without bloat.

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 cryptographic verification tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is thin. It omits practical details such as the expected format of raw_body, timestamp format, how tolerance_sec is applied, and how success/failure is reported to the caller.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It adds meaning for raw_body, timestamp, and secret as HMAC inputs, but it never discusses the signature parameter or the optional tolerance_sec and skip_time_check parameters, whose defaults materially affect verification semantics.

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 action — verifying a MONA Pay webhook signature — and names the exact mechanism: HMAC-SHA256 computed from raw body, timestamp, and secret. The 'no network call' / 'locally' phrasing clearly separates it from network-dependent sibling 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 gives a clear context: use this when you need to verify a webhook signature offline without making a network request. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so the agent must infer the intended workflow from the word 'verify' and the sibling list.

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