Check a key order created with buy_key. Takes the claim token, reports whether the payment has been seen and whether the key is ready to claim
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| claim_token | Yes |
| 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: +{
+ "claim_token": [
+ "claimToken"
+ ]
+}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: +{
+ "claim_token": "agent.claimToken"
+}Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "description": "state of a key order: pending, paid, issued",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose the core behavior — checking payment visibility and claim readiness — but does not mention whether the check has side effects, whether it consumes the token, or what happens for invalid/expired tokens.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence states the action, the required input, and the two reported outcomes. There is no redundant phrasing or 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?
For a simple one-parameter status-check tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential calling context: what input to provide and what questions the result answers. No additional prerequisites or behavioral caveats are necessary for basic invocation.
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 schema provides only the parameter name and type, so the description adds essential meaning by identifying the token as a claim token from buy_key. This is sufficient for a single string parameter, though it could have specified the token format or origin more precisely.
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 ('check') and resource ('key order created with buy_key'), and clarifies exactly what the tool reports: whether payment was seen and whether the key is ready to claim. This clearly distinguishes it from buy_key (creation) and claim_key (claiming).
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 description implies the correct usage context: after buy_key, before claiming, using the claim token. It does not explicitly contrast with claim_key or state 'use this instead of X', but the workflow is clear enough that an agent can infer when to poll this tool.
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.