ChainHelix for Machines

situation_report

Requires a ChainHelix API key as bearer token, or 5 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 full market picture in one call: market state with momentum (RSI, MACD, 4h trend), price walls, large transfers, bot activity and the Bitcoin queue for every chain in a single report. Omit chain for all nine

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chain`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chains`	Yes
`generated`	Yes
`bitcoinQueue`	No

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses the required authentication/bearre token and the per-call payment methods, and it implies a read-only reporting action. However, it does not expressly state side effects/safety-related behavior or rate-limitational behavior beyond the per-call cost transparency.

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 operation is not padded, but the main purpose appears in the second sentence, while the first sentence front-loads a detailed/payment context. For an agent trying to quickly select a tool, the core purpose would ideally be the opener.

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?

For single optional parameter + output schema, the definition gives the output, the chain filtering behavior, and the network/payment requirements. It provides the complete operational context an agent needs for correct safe invocation, and any details of the response structure are already covered by the existence of an output schema.

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?

The schema has one 'chain' parameter with enum allowed but the schema_description_coverage is 0%. The description compensates by explaining the key semantics: omitting the chain requests all nine. That is essential invocation information that is not available in a typed description.

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 that the tool produces a network-wide market report with momentum, ons deep, price walls, large transfers, bot activity, and the Bitcoin queue. That is specific and distinct from sibling tools like market_state, wall_map, latest_signals, and whale_flows.

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?

It gives a clear invitation to use the tool for a broad all-market 'full picture', and it explains the main operational choice: provide a chain for a single-chain report or omit it for all chains. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the comprehensive-market framing conveys when this tool is the right fit.

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?