ChainHelix for Machines

latest_signals

Requires a ChainHelix API key as bearer token, or 6 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 live ChainHelix signal stream, newest first. Each signal names chain, direction, entry price, win probability and a conviction score with its ranking tier, and every one is sealed on chain the moment it exists so the record cannot be edited afterward. Verify any of them with the free proof tools. Optional chain, and limit up to 50

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chain`	No
`limit`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`results`	Yes

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses authentication/payment requirements, output fields, immutability ('sealed on chain... cannot be edited afterward'), and verifiability. This is substantial behavioral transparency, though it omits potential rate limits or latency details.

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 detailed but every sentence serves a purpose: payment prerequisites, the core function, output content, immutability, verification, and parameters. It is somewhat dense but not verbose, with clear front-loading of essential access information.

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 presence of an output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential usage context: authentication/payment, the nature of the stream, output fields, immutability, verification, and parameter constraints. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds that 'chain' is optional and 'limit up to 50' imposes a maximum. This adds some meaning beyond the schema (which only shows types/enum), but it does not fully explain each parameter's purpose or behavior in detail.

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 clearly states it provides 'The live ChainHelix signal stream, newest first', naming the specific resource and action. It also lists the signal contents (chain, direction, entry price, win probability, conviction score), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like prices or market_state.

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?

Clear context is provided: this tool returns live signals, with optional chain filtering and a limit up to 50. It also references 'free proof tools' for verification, suggesting a workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, or any exclusions.

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?