How to verify an instrument signal commit and a fill receipt yourself: canonical forms, hashes, the CHXI calldata layouts on opBNB, the reveal rule
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| signal | No | ||
| product | No | ||
| receipt | No | ||
| toVerify | No | ||
| namespace | 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 present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is a reference/instructions source ('How to ... yourself') and enumerates what it covers, implying a read-only documentation behavior. It does not explicitly state that it performs no live verification or chain queries, but the phrasing is enough to avoid mistaking it for a mutating or verifying 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 sentence front-loads the primary use and uses a colon to compactly list the delivered content. No filler or repetition of the schema; every element earns its place.
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?
The tool is a simple parameterless spec with an output schema, and the description names the specific network (opBNB), the relevant domain artifacts (instrument signal commit, fill receipt, CHXI calldata layouts, reveal rule). It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly, though it leaves the relationship to verify_instrument_signal / verify_fill implicit.
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 parameters and 100% description coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Baseline for a parameterless tool is 4; the description adds no parameter info because none is needed.
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?
Description opens with a specific purpose—'How to verify an instrument signal commit and a fill receipt yourself'—and scopes the content to 'canonical forms, hashes, CHXI calldata layouts on opBNB, reveal rule.' It clearly identifies the tool as a self-verification reference rather than a live verifier, and its scope differentiates it from sibling verify tools such as verify_instrument_signal and verify_fill.
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 'yourself' framing implies an agent should reach for this spec when it needs canonical forms/hashes for independent verification rather than calling the built-in verification tools. It gives clear context and content boundaries, though it does not explicitly name the alternative tools or state when not to use it.
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.