Requires a ChainHelix API key as bearer token, or 2 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. Bitcoin queue depth now vs the past 30 days plus the current fastest fee
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| p90_30d | Yes | ||
| median30d | Yes | ||
| fastestFee | Yes | ||
| pendingTransactions | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly discloses authentication (ChainHelix API key as bearer token) and alternative payment methods, which is critical for invocation. However, it does not mention other behavioral aspects like rate limits, caching, or any side effects (though the tool appears read-only). The payment information is a useful behavioral context.
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?
The description is a single long sentence that leads with payment/auth details before stating the actual purpose. This is not optimally front-loaded; the core functionality appears later. It is concise in word count but structurally could be improved by stating the service first, then the access requirements.
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?
For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the main data points (queue depth, time range, fastest fee) and access constraints. It does not explain return format, but the output schema should cover that. The payment options are clearly enumerated, adding necessary context for real-world invocation.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description does not miss any parameter documentation since none exist. It implicitly conveys that the tool takes no arguments and returns current and historical congestion data.
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 the tool provides 'Bitcoin queue depth now vs the past 30 days plus the current fastest fee', which clearly identifies the resource and data. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'fetch', so the purpose is inferred rather than grammatically explicit. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on Bitcoin congestion metrics.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions payment requirements but does not explain when Bitcoin congestion data is relevant or how it compares to sibling tools like market_state or prices. There are no explicit when/when-not statements.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.