intel

receipt_spec

How to verify the receipt on a paid answer yourself: what the receipt hashes, how receipts are batched into one Merkle root, the calldata layout of the seal on opBNB and the steps to check a receipt against it. attest_status with the payment nonce returns the receipt, its batch and its Merkle path

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`seal`	No
`batch`	No
`stats`	No
`receipt`	No
`toVerify`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 21, 2026

changedInput schema / x-lexicon / bundleSha256

Previous value: -"a1c2e10fd3177d6b4d59ca78693e8fb36880165cf0f735f680dd86a510411178"New value: +"e5b4290024a229f2bdf97f8fc6a0079c3fe13b77267f41fdcffeb8b26aa1c41e"

Changed1 schema field changedSep 19, 2026

changedInput schema / x-lexicon / bundleSha256

Previous value: -"1eeb782ee15fe69fc80776948e0556fa6b795e210e6305935b2c97b73d955cda"New value: +"a1c2e10fd3177d6b4d59ca78693e8fb36880165cf0f735f680dd86a510411178"

Changed1 schema field changedSep 19, 2026

changedInput schema / x-lexicon / bundleSha256

Previous value: -"c014292cad7497ce9fd68c33345ac32cb42b672c8e77d6c749c26e162cc207e4"New value: +"1eeb782ee15fe69fc80776948e0556fa6b795e210e6305935b2c97b73d955cda"

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 19, 2026

addedInput schema / x-lexicon

Added value: +{
+  "bundleSha256": "c014292cad7497ce9fd68c33345ac32cb42b672c8e77d6c749c26e162cc207e4",
+  "name": "ChainHelix Agentic Lexicon",
+  "resolve": "lexicon_resolve",
+  "spec": "lexicon_spec",
+  "version": "0.1.0"
+}

addedInput schema / x-vocab
```
Added value: +{}
```

AddedSep 7, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It describes the content of the spec but does not explicitly state that the tool returns a static documentation resource or that it has no side effects. However, given the descriptive nature, it avoids contradicting annotations and provides adequate context for a spec tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise, consisting of two sentences that bundle multiple topics (hashing, Merkle root, calldata layout, steps) in a dense but clear manner. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, though the density might slightly hinder readability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a specification tool, the description adequately covers the essential topics an agent would need to know about receipt verification. It outlines the key areas and mentions the related attest_status tool, providing sufficient context for an agent to decide whether to consult this spec. The presence of an output schema augments the description, so completeness is adequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has no parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description does not mention parameters, which is appropriate given the empty schema. No additional parameter information is needed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: instructing users on verifying receipts, including hashing, Merkle batching, calldata layout, and verification steps. It differentiates itself from sibling spec tools by focusing specifically on receipt verification, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies it's a reference for receipt verification but doesn't mention any decision criteria or alternative tools, leaving usage context unclear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All intel tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?