ChainHelix for Machines

hire_plan_yieldopt

Plan a hire of the ChainHelix yieldopt agent (ERC-8004 #269226, Yield allocation across pools). Given candidate pools with APY, optional TVL and risk score, and the capital to place, returns the allocation per pool under concentration and TVL-share caps, the blended APY and any capital left unallocated because a cap bound first. Deterministic arithmetic, no custody, no execution. 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/yieldopt/.well-known/agent-card.json. Example: {"pools":{"pcs-wbnb-usdt":{"apyPct":12.5,"tvlUsd":50000000,"riskScore":2},"venus-usdt":{"apyPct":6.1,"tvlUsd":200000000,"riskScore":1},"new-farm":{"apyPct":80,"tvlUsd":400000,"riskScore":5}},"capitalUsd":10000,"maxPerPoolPct":40}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`pools`	No	candidate pools keyed by name; riskScore 1 (safest) to 5, default 3 (also accepted as: opportunities, vaults, farms)
`terms`	No	optional ERC-8183 terms {deliverables, quality_standards}; the agent quotes its fixed price either way
`tvlCapPct`	No	max share of a pool's TVL to hold, default 5
`capitalUsd`	No	capital to allocate (also accepted as: budgetUsd, capital, budget, amountUsd)
`riskAversion`	No	0 chases raw APY, 1 applies the full risk discount, default 0.5
`maxPerPoolPct`	No	max share of capital in one pool, at most 100, default 40

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 full behavioral disclosure and does an excellent job: it states 'Deterministic arithmetic, no custody, no execution', explains that the call is free while the job is not, describes the wallet-signed quote and escrow payment, and clarifies that the createJob calldata must be signed by the user's wallet.

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 longer than average but front-loads purpose and behavior first, then covers safety, cost, workflow, and provenance. The example and agent-card URL are valuable. Minor redundancy exists between the escrow/funding sentence and 'This call is free; the job is not', but overall the length is justified by the tool's complexity.

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?

The description covers inputs, outputs, allocation constraints, safety posture, costs, quote mechanics, signing responsibilities, funding follow-up, and an end-to-end example. With an output schema also present, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without external lookup.

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%, so the schema already documents every parameter and alias. The description adds a concrete example and clarifies that the parameters exactly match the agent card, but it does not meaningfully expand on the parameter meanings beyond what the schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Plan a hire of the ChainHelix yieldopt agent' with the agent's ERC-8004 identifier and purpose 'Yield allocation across pools'. It also spells out the expected output (allocation per pool, blended APY, unallocated capital), making it fully distinguishable from sibling hire_plan_* tools.

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: use this tool when planning a yield-allocation hire with candidate pools, APY, TVL, risk scores, and capital. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives among siblings, but the agent identity and use case are unmistakable.

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?