How to verify a sealed delivery claim yourself: the canonical form, the hash, the calldata layout on opBNB, what each check means and the steps to repeat them
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hash | No | ||
| name | No | ||
| seal | No | ||
| stats | No | ||
| checks | No | ||
| toVerify | No | ||
| verdicts | No | ||
| canonical | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / x-lexicon / bundleSha256Previous value: -"670f7504e3de5031beccee25a2d24e4515f68b893295f6d5b0d3a0665498b2c9"New value: +"25cc80db6d8e9eac73d47a50f7ad6333a21f1972d008a8fed0159de8bfb4b519"Input schema / x-lexicon / bundleSha256Previous value: -"e5b4290024a229f2bdf97f8fc6a0079c3fe13b77267f41fdcffeb8b26aa1c41e"New value: +"670f7504e3de5031beccee25a2d24e4515f68b893295f6d5b0d3a0665498b2c9"Input schema / x-lexicon / versionPrevious value: -"0.1.0"New value: +"0.2.0"Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / x-lexicon / bundleSha256Previous value: -"a1c2e10fd3177d6b4d59ca78693e8fb36880165cf0f735f680dd86a510411178"New value: +"e5b4290024a229f2bdf97f8fc6a0079c3fe13b77267f41fdcffeb8b26aa1c41e"Input schema / x-lexicon / bundleSha256Previous value: -"1eeb782ee15fe69fc80776948e0556fa6b795e210e6305935b2c97b73d955cda"New value: +"a1c2e10fd3177d6b4d59ca78693e8fb36880165cf0f735f680dd86a510411178"Input schema / x-lexicon / bundleSha256Previous value: -"c014292cad7497ce9fd68c33345ac32cb42b672c8e77d6c749c26e162cc207e4"New value: +"1eeb782ee15fe69fc80776948e0556fa6b795e210e6305935b2c97b73d955cda"Input schema / x-lexiconAdded value: +{
+ "bundleSha256": "c014292cad7497ce9fd68c33345ac32cb42b672c8e77d6c749c26e162cc207e4",
+ "name": "ChainHelix Agentic Lexicon",
+ "resolve": "lexicon_resolve",
+ "spec": "lexicon_spec",
+ "version": "0.1.0"
+}Input schema / x-vocabAdded value: +{}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses what content the spec contains (canonical form, hash, calldata layout, per-check meaning, repeatable steps), but says nothing about read-only nature, static vs. live content, or auth requirements beyond the implied reference-doc role.
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?
A single sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose ('How to verify a sealed delivery claim yourself'). It is efficient, though the trailing comma-list reads slightly run-on.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description adequately conveys the spec's content scope for a static 0-param reference tool. What is missing is differentiation from other spec tools, not internal completeness.
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 tool takes no parameters, so there is no parameter surface for the description to clarify; this matches the 0-param baseline of 4. Schema coverage is trivially 100%.
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 the tool delivers guidance on verifying a sealed delivery claim, enumerating the artifacts it exposes (canonical form, hash, calldata layout on opBNB, checks, steps). However, it does not distinguish itself from the many sibling '*_spec' tools (proof_spec, attest_spec, receipt_spec) that likely serve analogous reference roles.
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 phrase 'verify a sealed delivery claim yourself' hints at a use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to overlapping siblings like delivery_status or verified_delivery. An agent gets no routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.