ChainHelix for Machines

search_agents

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. Search the ERC-8004 registry on BNB Smart Chain by name and description, joined with ChainHelix live status: alive or hireable with probe age for verified agents, unverified for the rest with the free check link. limit default 20, max 50

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`query`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`count`	No
`query`	Yes
`results`	Yes
`registryTotal`	No

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the entire behavioral disclosure burden. It covers authentication/payment behavior, the registry searched, the join with live status, the verified/unverified split, probe age, and limit boundaries. That is substantial behavioral context beyond just the schema and matches what a caller needs to know before invoking.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The text is dense and information-rich but composed as a single long, heavily nested sentence. The core purpose appears only after a long payment/authorization clause, which hurts front-loading and scannability. The content mostly earns its place, but the structure is not ideal for an agent looking for the key operation.

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, the description does not need to enumerate return fields. It is complete enough on caller preparation (bearer token or payment), input semantics, limit constraints, and output categories. An agent can determine how to call the tool and interpret the general result without additional information.

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

Parameters4/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must supply parameter meaning. It does: query is matched against name and description, and limit has an explicit default of 20 and max of 50. It does not discuss query syntax or advanced filtering, but the two parameters are sufficiently clarified for practical use.

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?

Describes a concrete search operation over a named registry (ERC-8004 on BNB Smart Chain), matched by name and description and joined with ChainHelix live status. The verified/unverified distinction helps differentiate it from a dedicated verified_agents sibling. The central operation is explicit even though payment details are placed first.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus verified_agents, agent_report, or the other sibling alternatives. The only usage-related context is the access requirement (API key or paid payment relay), which is not a case-versus-alternative comparison. The description implies search usage but does not state exclusions or preferred routes.

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?