Check one fill receipt by fill_id: recompute its hash from its fields and, when sealed, the Merkle root of its batch against the seal transaction
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fill_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| found | No | ||
| fill_id | No | ||
| hashRecomputes | No | ||
| batchRootRecomputes | 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-aliasesAdded value: +{
+ "fill_id": [
+ "fillId"
+ ]
+}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: +{
+ "fill_id": "market.fillId"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the actual algorithm (recompute the hash from the receipt's fields) and the conditional branch ('when sealed, the Merkle root of its batch against the seal transaction'). It stops short of stating permission requirements, network needs, or what a mismatch means, but the core behavior is unusually well exposed for a verification tool.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with no filler: the action and the identifier come first, and the mechanism clause follows. Every clause adds information and nothing is repeated from the schema.
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 explained. For a one-parameter read-style verification tool with no annotations, the description supplies enough to call it correctly; only the absence of any fill_id format hint keeps it from being fully self-sufficient.
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% for the single fill_id parameter, so the description must compensate; it only establishes that fill_id identifies one receipt. No format, encoding, or example is given, though the schema's x-vocab mapping to market.fillId supplies some type grounding.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Check one fill receipt by fill_id') and goes further by naming the verification mechanism (hash recomputation, Merkle root vs seal transaction). It is clearly distinct from the sibling fill_receipts listing tool, though it never names that sibling explicitly, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.
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?
Usage is implied by the verb 'Check' and the single-receipt scope, so an agent can infer this is for validating one receipt's integrity. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no pointer to alternatives such as fill_receipts for retrieval or the other verify_* siblings.
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.