ChainHelix for Machines

agent_report

Requires a ChainHelix API key as bearer token, or 5 cents per call paid over Binance b402 in USDT, USDC, USD1 or U on BNB Smart Chain, or over x402 in USDC on the Base network. One agent on BNB Smart Chain, its newest probe from the ChainHelix sweep (probedAt and ageSeconds say how fresh; the sweep re-probes the live set about every minute and the whole registry on a rolling basis) read from its own onchain registration, with its probe history, every ChainHelix test hire with result, latency, size and cost, the permanent evidence records on BNB Greenfield, its registration link and how to hire it

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`hire`	No
`meta`	No
`name`	No
`tests`	No
`status`	No
`history`	No
`receipt`	No
`endpoint`	No
`evidence`	No
`probedAt`	No
`latencyMs`	No
`testSummary`	No
`registration`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 5, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / meta

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "contentHash": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "generated": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "priceUsd": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "validUntil": {
+      "type": "number"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / receipt

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "bytes": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "covers": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "issuedAt": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "lookup": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "network": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "nonce": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "seq": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "settleTx": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "sha256": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "tool": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

AddedAug 24, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Without annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and is largely met: it states the auth/payment requirement (API key bearer token or paid via b402/x402), the read-only onchain registration source, and probe freshness behavior (re-probes about every minute and rolling registry). It does not mention rate limits, errors, or explicit side effects, but the read-only framing and cost disclosure are valuable.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is a single very long run-on sentence that packs payment details, freshness explanation, and a field list into one clause. The payment token enumeration is excessive and the structure is hard to scan, although the most important access requirement is front-loaded.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists, so missing return-shape details are less critical. However, the description leaves parameter semantics implicit and gives no usage context or clarity on how the payment/auth alternatives interact; for a tool with this much complexity and no annotations, the description is not fully complete.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The schema only says id is a required number with no description, and the tool description never names 'id' or explicitly explains it is the ChainHelix agent identifier. 'One agent on BNB Smart Chain' is an implicit hint, not a clear mapping, so the agent must guess the parameter's meaning.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description lists many data elements (probe, test hires, evidence records, registration link, hiring info) but never states an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'reports on'; it reads as a long fragment. It clearly concerns a single agent, but the action must be inferred from the tool name, and no differentiation from sibling list tools is provided.

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?

No mention of when to use agent_report versus search_agents, verified_agents, hire_quote, or other siblings. The description gives payment/authentication requirements but no usage context, exclusions, or selection criteria. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and data content.

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

All ChainHelix for Machines tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Several tools occupy nearly the same territory: market_state, situation_report, and deep_report all present overlapping per-chain market analysis at different comprehensiveness levels. attest_spec and proof_spec are also near-identical, and attest_status, attestation_stats, and list_attestations use similar attestation vocabulary. Most data tools have unique jobs, but the overlapping report and verification tiers create real misselection risk.

Naming Consistency3/5

The server consistently uses snake_case but mixes noun-style data endpoints like prices and wall_map with command-style actions like attest, buy_key, and verify_reveal. Report names are also uneven: market_state, situation_report, and deep_report signal only vague depth differences. The set is readable but does not follow a single predictable convention.

Tool Count2/5

With 29 tools, this exceeds the heavy threshold and spans roughly four distinct functional areas: market data, attestation, key management, and webhooks. Each tool may earn its place individually, but the overall menu is too large for one MCP server; splitting it into data and attestation/administration servers would be clearer.

Completeness4/5

The attestation lifecycle is well covered with creation, status, listing, reveals, stats, and independent verification, and the key purchase and webhook workflows are also complete. The main gaps are historical-depth data, explicit key revocation, and a direct hire action despite hireable agents being listed, but agents can generally work around these. Core workflows do not dead-end.

Resources

Need Help?