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 | Fill id as on the receipt: fil_, the time in base 36, _ and 6 hex characters. Example: fil_mh5k2x1c_a1b2c3 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| found | No | ||
| fill_id | No | ||
| hashRecomputes | No | ||
| batchRootRecomputes | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / fill_id / descriptionAdded value: +"Fill id as on the receipt: fil_, the time in base 36, _ and 6 hex characters. Example: fil_mh5k2x1c_a1b2c3"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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: it recomputes the hash from the receipt's fields and, conditionally on being sealed, checks the Merkle root against the seal transaction. It does not explain failure outcomes, but the output schema covers returns.
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 dense sentence that leads with the verb and the target, then layers in the verification mechanics. No filler or redundancy.
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?
With an output schema handling return values and a readOnly annotation covering safety, the description supplies the missing behavioral core: what verification actually entails, including the conditional sealed/Merkle check. Sufficient for correct invocation, though a note on what a failed check means would complete it.
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 100%, and the fill_id format is fully documented in the schema (fil_ prefix, base-36 time, six hex chars, example). The description only restates that the lookup is by fill_id, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 gives a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('one fill receipt by fill_id') and details the mechanics of verification (hash recomputation and Merkle root check). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with nearby siblings like fill_receipts or verify_reveal.
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 'Check one fill receipt by fill_id,' which suggests this is the single-record verification path versus a listing tool. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not framing or named alternative, so the agent must infer the routing.
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.