Skip to main content
Glama

ChainHelix for Machines

by io.chainhelix.mcp

buy_key

Buy a ChainHelix API key without a browser or account. Pick a plan (standard 99 dollars a month at 120 requests per minute, or pro 249 dollars a month at 600 requests per minute) and a payment chain (ethereum, solana, bnb, polygon, tron, avalanche or sui). Returns a payment address, an exact amount in USDC or USDT, and a claim token. Send the exact amount, then call claim_key. Orders expire after 24 hours, or sooner under load (2 hours when more than 25 orders are open, 30 minutes above 40). Email is required for the alerts plan (Telegram delivery) and optional otherwise; with one, the key and receipt are also emailed

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
planYes
chainYes
emailNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and does so well: it discloses the returned payment address, exact amount, claim token, order expiry windows, and email requirements. It does not describe failure or reversal behavior or clarify the pricing of the alerts plan, so it stops short of complete disclosure.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose and every sentence contributes necessary information. It is a long single paragraph with dense parentheticals, which could be structured more clearly, but it is not bloated.

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 3-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the payment flow, expiry, required params, and the next step (claim_key). It does not mention order status checking or failure handling, but the essential calling context is present.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description compensates by explainig plan, chain, and email semantics: standard/pro pricing, the chain enum, and email requirements. However, the alerts plan is mentioned only later and lacks the same price/rate detail as standard and pro, leaving its parameter meaning slightly incomplete.

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 first sentence states a specific action and resource: buy a ChainHelix API key without a browser or account. It is clearly distinct from the sibling claim_key because the description explains buy_key as the first payment step and names claim_key as the follow-up.

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 context for when to use buy_key: to initiate a key purchase and receive payment instructions. It also tells the agent to call claim_key after payment, but it does not mention alternatives such as key_order_status or explicitly state when not to use it.

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 toolsInspect
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