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. Pairwise correlation of hourly returns across the nine chains. window in days default 7 max 30
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| window | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mean | No | ||
| pairs | Yes | ||
| windowDays | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and adds meaningful behavioral context: it reveals the need for a ChainHelix API key or per-call payment, and specifies the window parameter's default and maximum. However, it does not describe the return structure or error behavior, though an output schema exists.
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 reasonably concise but leads with payment requirements rather than the core function, which is slightly suboptimal for front-loading. All information is relevant and there is no filler.
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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential context: payment/auth, core function, and parameter limits. It could be improved by listing the nine chains or clarifying the output format, but overall it is adequate for an agent to use the tool correctly.
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 schema only lists 'window' as a number with no description. The tool description compensates by specifying units ('in days'), a default of 7, and a maximum of 30, providing critical meaning that the schema lacks.
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 clearly states the tool computes 'Pairwise correlation of hourly returns across the nine chains', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'prices' or 'market_state' by focusing on correlation analysis.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description focuses on authentication/payment requirements and the parameter, but does not explain scenarios where correlation analysis is appropriate or when another tool might be preferred.
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.