ChainHelix for Machines

deep_report

Requires a ChainHelix API key as bearer token, or 25 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. The complete nine chain research brief in one call: the full market report with price walls, large transfers and bot activity, the live signal stream with conviction scores and ranking tiers, cross chain correlations, options volatility, session statistics and the proof stream counters, with links to verify every signal on chain. The most complete single answer this server produces

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chain`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`meta`	No
`proof`	No
`report`	No
`verify`	No
`receipt`	No
`signals`	No
`sessions`	No
`generated`	Yes
`correlations`	No
`optionsVolatility`	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"
+}

First observedAug 17, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it does disclose important non-obvious behavior: API-key bearer requirement, per-call cost and payment rails, and the proof/verification aspect of the response. It does not describe side effects, but the report-oriented language makes a read-only behavior reasonably clear.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is informative but runs as one dense paragraph, front-loading payment details before the tool's purpose. It contains some redundancy ('complete' appears multiple times), but most sentences add concrete value about output contents or access requirements.

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?

For a complex report tool, the description thoroughly covers output contents, pricing, auth, and verification links, and an output schema exists to detail the return shape. The main gap is the semantics of the chain parameter and the absence of guidance on when to choose this tool over its report siblings, which leaves invocation partially ambiguous.

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 provides one chain parameter with a clear enum but zero description coverage, and the tool description does not explain what the chain parameter does. The phrase 'complete nine chain research brief' creates ambiguity about whether chain filters to one chain, returns all nine, or is ignored when omitted.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly identifies the tool as a comprehensive nine-chain research brief and enumerates its contents: market report, signal stream, correlations, options volatility, session stats, and proof counters. It lacks an explicit single verb like 'generates' or 'returns,' and does not name sibling tools, so it is not fully differentiated by name.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'complete nine chain research brief in one call' and 'most complete single answer this server produces' imply usage when the agent needs a comprehensive multi-chain report, and the payment/API-key prerequisites give an access condition. However, it never names alternatives such as chain_brief or situation_report and gives no when-not-to-use guidance.

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?