evernode-mcp

Check contract determinism

check_determinism

Read-onlyIdempotent

Scan HotPocket contract source for non-deterministic patterns that break cluster consensus, providing guidance to ensure deterministic execution.

Instructions

Heuristic scan of HotPocket contract source for non-deterministic patterns (wall-clock, randomness, network I/O, env, timers, unordered iteration) that break cluster consensus. HIGH findings are likely consensus breakers. Guidance, not a proof.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "source": "<source>"
    },
    "name": "check_determinism"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`source`	Yes	the contract JS/TS source to scan

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`summary`	No
`findings`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint; description adds value by detailing scanned patterns and noting that HIGH findings are consensus breakers, with no contradictions.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences with front-loaded key information; every sentence earns its place with no waste.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With good annotations, single parameter clearly described, and output schema present, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, behavior, and limitations.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and parameter description is adequate; description adds minimal extra meaning beyond 'scan for patterns'.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Description uses specific verbs ('Heuristic scan') and lists concrete non-deterministic patterns, clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like check_contract_api or generate_contract.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Clearly states the tool is for checking determinism and sets expectations ('Guidance, not a proof'), but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives among siblings.

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

Deploy Server