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: -"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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully signals that the tool is instructional rather than an action that performs verification, and it enumerates the topics covered. It does not explicitly state that invocation is read-only or side-effect free, but for a zero-parameter reference tool that is a moderate gap.
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 compact sentence that front-loads the user intent and then lists only concrete content specifics. Every phrase earns its place, and no redundant or filler wording is present.
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 zero-parameter documentation tool with an output schema present, the description adequately covers what the tool provides and how an agent can use it. It does not explicitly differentiate from closely related sibling tools, but the low invocation complexity and output schema reduce that need.
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 input schema has zero properties and 100% schema description coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. With no parameters, the baseline of 4 applies; the description does not need to add parameter-level detail because none exists.
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 names the exact subject—a sealed delivery claim—and lists concrete contents: canonical form, hash, calldata layout on opBNB, check meanings, and repeatable verification steps. This makes its purpose as a specification/reference clear, though it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like verified_delivery or delivery_status.
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" and "steps to repeat them" imply the tool is for retrieving or learning the verification procedure rather than executing it. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives such as verified_delivery or delivery_status, and no exclusions, so the guidance remains implied.
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.