The instrument list of the ChainHelix instrument lane: SpaceX and Circle perpetuals on Aster (BNB Chain). Venue, contract, chain, fees, funding cycle, session policy and the label every answer uses. These are derivatives on the venue, never the share
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| product | No | ||
| namespace | No | ||
| instruments | 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that these are derivatives, never the share, and enumerates what fields the list contains. It does not explicitly say the tool is read-only or side-effect-free, though 'list' strongly implies that.
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?
The description is compact at two sentences and packs in relevant domain context without fluff. 'The label every answer uses' is slightly cryptic, but it does not seriously hurt readability or usability.
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 tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states the venue, underlying instruments, chain, and the categories of data returned. The main gap is the lack of guidance on when this tool should be used relative to instrument_spec or instrument_state.
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 tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaningful context about what data the list exposes, which is sufficient since there is nothing for a caller to configure.
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 clearly identifies the tool as an instrument list for a specific lane (ChainHelix) and enumerates its contents: venue, contract, chain, fees, funding cycle, session policy, and label. It does not use an explicit action verb like 'list' or 'fetch,' and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as instrument_spec or instrument_state, but the resource and scope are unmistakable.
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?
No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like instrument_spec, instrument_state, or instrument_signals. The phrase 'the label every answer uses' hints at a general-purpose reference role, but it does not state when to choose this tool or when to avoid 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.