API keys are not on sale at the moment: every plan answers "This plan is not on sale." and no order is created. When the sale opens this tool returns a payment address, an exact amount in USDC or USDT and a claim token for the chosen plan and payment chain
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| plan | Yes | ||
| chain | Yes | ||
| No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input 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: +{
+ "email": [
+ "Email",
+ "EMAIL"
+ ]
+}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: +{
+ "chain": "onchain.chain",
+ "email": "identity.email",
+ "plan": "payment.plan"
+}Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "description": "order terms for an API key: what to pay, where, and the order id to poll",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the current no-sale behavior ('no order is created'), the exact failure message, and the three things returned when the sale opens (payment address, USDC/USDT amount, claim token). It omits permission/auth requirements and the role of the email parameter.
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 tight sentences, front-loading the currently-decisive fact (keys are not on sale, no order is created) before the future return contract. No filler.
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?
Given an output schema exists, return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still gives the agent an accurate mental model of both current and future behavior. The main gap is the undocumented email parameter and any prerequisite checks for the purchase flow.
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. It explains plan and chain semantics ('for the chosen plan and payment chain') and the payment currency, but adds nothing about the third parameter, email, and no format/syntax detail beyond the schema enums.
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 verb+resource (purchase of an API key / creation of a key order) and precisely describes the current and future outcome. It is clearly a different action from claim_key, key_order_status, or buyer_clearance, but it never names those siblings to sharpen the boundary.
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 rather than stated: the reader infers this tool starts the purchase by producing a payment address and claim token. There is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of what to call next (e.g. claim_key) or how it relates to key_order_status.
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.