Check one fill receipt by fill_id: recompute its hash from its fields and, when sealed, the Merkle root of its batch against the seal transaction
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fill_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| found | No | ||
| fill_id | No | ||
| hashRecomputes | No | ||
| batchRootRecomputes | 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-aliasesAdded value: +{
+ "fill_id": [
+ "fillId"
+ ]
+}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: +{
+ "fill_id": "market.fillId"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It does more than a generic 'verify' by disclosing the actual checks: recomputing the receipt's hash and, if sealed, comparing the batch Merkle root to the seal transaction. It does not explicitly state read-only/side-effect status or failure behavior, but for a verification tool this is strongly inferable.
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 dense sentence front-loads the resource ('one fill receipt by fill_id') and then adds the conditional verification detail. Every clause earns its place, and it does not repeat schema types or annotation information.
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?
With an output schema present and only one required parameter, the description covers the key call-time decisions: what is verified and the 'when sealed' branch. It does not discuss mismatch behavior or how to obtain fill_id, but these are minor given the output schema and the domain context.
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 has no description for fill_id (0% coverage), but the description establishes that fill_id selects the fill receipt being checked. For a single required string parameter, this is sufficient semantic orientation; no format or constraints are added, but none are strictly needed to invoke the tool correctly.
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 and resource: 'Check one fill receipt by fill_id', then explains the actual verification mechanics: recomputing the hash and checking the batch Merkle root against the seal transaction. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling verify tools that target instrument signals, lead alerts, or reveals.
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 makes clear the tool applies to exactly one fill receipt identified by fill_id, which implies when it should be used. However, it does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, and 'when sealed' is a behavioral condition rather than a tool-selection rule.
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.