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. Near term option implied volatility for Bitcoin and Ethereum, now vs one week ago
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| results | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It does disclose a critical behavioral trait: the requirement for a ChainHelix API key or payment via Binance/x402. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, rate limits, or what the output contains beyond the stated comparison. The payment requirement adds useful context but leaves other behavioral aspects undisclosed.
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 details, burying the actual purpose ('Near term option implied volatility...') at the end. It is not front-loaded and could be split into two sentences for clarity. However, it is not overly verbose, so it earns a mid-range score.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, output schema exists), the description covers the core purpose and the essential auth/payment context. The output schema presumably handles return values, so the description does not need to explain those. It is complete enough for a straightforward data-retrieval tool with a paywall caveat.
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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing to explain. The description therefore needs no parameter semantics. A baseline of 4 is appropriate because no parametric ambiguity exists.
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 provides near-term option implied volatility for Bitcoin and Ethereum, comparing now vs one week ago. This distinctly identifies the resource and scope, differentiating it from siblings like prices or market_state. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'Get' or 'List', so it is clear but not a model example of verb+resource.
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 compared to alternatives such as prices or market_state. The extensive payment/auth information is a prerequisite, not usage context. The description does not mention exclusions or preferred scenarios.
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.