ChainHelix for Machines

attest

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. Seal any claim on chain now, reveal it later, a track record nobody can backdate. Send your claim as the payload string with an optional revealDelayHours from 1 to 720, default 72. Your identity is your paying wallet, or your key id. ChainHelix seals the exact time of your commitment on the opBNB chain; the claim text and salt publish automatically at reveal time. This attests WHEN you said it, never whether it is true. Verification spec: the free attest_spec tool

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`payload`	Yes
`revealDelayHours`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`seq`	No
`hash`	No
`note`	No
`error`	No
`status`	No
`tenant`	No
`revealAt`	No
`committedAt`	No
`revealDelayHours`	No

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It discloses authentication/payment methods, on-chain behavior (opBNB), automatic publish of claim and salt at reveal time, and important limitation (attests when, not truth). This is exceptionally transparent.

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 a single dense paragraph packed with necessary details. While every sentence earns its place, it could be structured with bullet points for readability. Still, it is appropriately sized for the complexity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (payment, identity, on-chain sealing, reveal process), the description covers all essential aspects: authentication, payment options, identity, chain, reveal behavior, and a pointer to verification spec. Output schema exists, so return details are not needed. This is complete.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The schema has 0% coverage, but the description fully explains both parameters: 'payload' as the claim string and 'revealDelayHours' with range (1 to 720) and default (72). This adds critical meaning beyond the schema's bare type definitions.

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?

The description explicitly states the tool's function: 'Seal any claim on chain now, reveal it later' and clarifies it attests 'WHEN you said it, never whether it is true.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like attest_spec and verify_reveal by focusing on the sealing action.

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?

The description gives clear operational context (payment requirements, claim format, reveal delay) and points to attest_spec for verification. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives for when to use this specific tool versus list_attestations or verify_reveal, so a slight deduction.

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?