Requires a ChainHelix API key as bearer token, or 1 cent 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. Live price for every chain in one call, the one cent market check. Omit chain for all nine
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| results | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the authentication requirement (Bearer token or per-call payment) and the scope of the call (all chains vs one chain). It does not mention rate limits or error behavior, but the auth/payment context is valuable and beyond what structured data would provide.
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 compact and information-dense. The first sentence lists payment options in detail, which could feel heavy, but every part serves a purpose. The core price-check functionality appears early, and the parameter guidance is concise. Minor jargon like 'b402' and 'x402' could confuse, slightly reducing clarity.
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?
For a single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential context: purpose, auth/payment, and parameter behavior. It does not explain return structure or format, but the presence of an output schema makes that unnecessary. The unexplained 'b402'/'x402' terminology is a minor gap, but overall the description is adequate.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and there is one optional parameter with an enum. The description adds crucial semantics: 'Omit chain for all nine' explains the default behavior when the parameter is absent. This goes beyond the schema's simple optional flag, though it does not elaborate on each chain value.
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 live prices for chains ('Live price for every chain in one call') and mentions the 'one cent market check' positioning. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like market_state or iv_summary, so it falls short of full clarity.
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?
The description implies usage for quick market checks ('the one cent market check') and explains the optional chain parameter, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to use it. The payment/auth context is useful but not a usage guideline.
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.