Recompute the hash and Merkle fold for one reveal by sequence number. Returns each check result plus the data to re-verify independently on chain
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| seq | Yes | Sequence number of the reveal, whole number. Example: 1024 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | ||
| found | Yes | ||
| status | No | ||
| opbnbTx | No | ||
| anchorBscTx | No | ||
| verifyOnChain | No | ||
| hashRecomputes | No | ||
| merkleFoldsToAnchorRoot | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / seq / descriptionAdded value: +"Sequence number of the reveal, whole number. Example: 1024"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: +{
+ "seq": "agent.seq"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with a safe read-only recomputation. It adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it returns each check result plus the raw data needed to re-verify independently on-chain, which tells the agent what the operation actually produces.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the return behavior. No filler, though the second sentence could be slightly tighter.
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 single-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and full param coverage, the description covers purpose, scope, and return nature adequately. Only the routing to alternative verification tools is missing.
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 single 'seq' parameter is already documented with a type and example in the schema. The description's mention of 'sequence number' restates the schema rather than adding format or range guidance, so baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource — recomputing the hash and Merkle fold for a single reveal identified by sequence number — which is far more informative than a bare 'verify'. It is clearly distinct from list-oriented siblings like list_reveals, though it never names a sibling explicitly.
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 'for one reveal by sequence number' implies the use case (checking a single reveal's proof), but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus list_reveals, verify_fill, or proof_spec. Usage must be inferred from purpose alone.
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.