ChainHelix for Machines

hire_plan_gridtrader

Plan a hire of the ChainHelix gridtrader agent (ERC-8004 #269224, Grid trading ladder). Given a mark price and a budget, returns a symmetric buy/sell grid: buy levels below the price, sell levels above, equal USD size per level, and when strong price walls are supplied each level is annotated with its nearest wall and flagged if it sits on one. Deterministic arithmetic, no custody, no execution. Not a bounded-loss or profit-target strategy: fees, slippage, gas and PnL are not computed. Send the job parameters; you get back the agent's live wallet-signed quote (the job price, paid into escrow on chain when you fund) and the createJob calldata to sign from YOUR wallet, then fund and tell the agent (steps in the answer). This call is free; the job is not. The parameters here are exactly what the agent accepts; the same schema is on its agent card at https://agents.chainhelix.io/gridtrader/.well-known/agent-card.json. Example: {"price":691.65,"budgetUsd":1000,"levels":5,"spanPct":2,"walls":{"677.8":3,"705.5":2}}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`lower`	No	grid lower bound in price; with upper, an alternative to spanPct
`price`	No	current mark price (also accepted as: mid, midPrice, mark, markPrice, currentPrice, spot)
`terms`	No	optional ERC-8183 terms {deliverables, quality_standards}; the agent quotes its fixed price either way
`upper`	No	grid upper bound in price; with lower, an alternative to spanPct
`walls`	No	known support/resistance walls keyed by price, touches is an integer 1 to 10000; levels on a wall are flagged
`levels`	No	grid lines per side, default 5 (also accepted as: gridLevels, nLevels)
`spanPct`	No	half-width of the grid in percent, below 100, default 5; or send lower and upper (absolute bounds) and the half-width is derived from the wider side (also accepted as: rangePct, widthPct)
`budgetUsd`	No	total capital to ladder (also accepted as: capitalUsd, budget, capital, notionalUsd, sizeUsd)
`wallBandPct`	No	distance in percent that counts as on a wall, default 0.7

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tx`	No
`next`	No
`plan`	No
`agent`	Yes
`error`	No
`example`	No
`missing`	No
`envelope`	No
`expected`	No
`erc8004Id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

AddedSep 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does so thoroughly: it discloses deterministic arithmetic, no custody, no execution, no fee/slippage/gas/PnL computation, on-chain escrow payment, and the need to sign createJob calldata from the caller's wallet. These are behaviors an agent needs to know before calling.

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 information-dense and front-loaded with purpose and output, followed by caveats and usage flow. It is slightly verbose in places, especially the trailing note about the agent card URL, but every major sentence earns its place by conveying behavior or boundaries.

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 (9 parameters, nested objects, output schema), the description is complete: it explains what the tool returns, what it does not compute, the financial implication of the job, the signing requirement, and directs the caller to the exact accepted schema. Since an output schema exists, the description need not repeat return-value documentation.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter already has detailed descriptions including accepted aliases, defaults, and bounds. The description adds an example payload and notes that the schema matches the agent card, but does not materially add semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb ('Plan a hire'), a specific resource (ChainHelix gridtrader agent, ERC-8004 #269224), and the concrete output (symmetric buy/sell grid). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling planning tools like hire_plan_healthmon by describing what this particular hire plan computes.

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 tells the caller what to send (job parameters) and what will come back (wallet-signed quote and createJob calldata), plus the important 'call is free, job is not' distinction. It also states what the tool is not for (bounded-loss/profit-target strategy, execution, custody), though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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?