ChainHelix for Machines

verified_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. ChainHelix Verified, the live map of agents on BNB Smart Chain that are actually running: every ERC-8004 registration is probed from its own on-chain record and only alive and hireable agents are listed, each with its endpoint, skills, probe age in seconds, latency, and the permanent evidence record on BNB Greenfield. Optional status hireable or alive

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chain`	No
`count`	No
`method`	No
`results`	Yes
`version`	No
`free_check`	No
`probedTotal`	No

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioural burden. It discloses authentication requirements, fallback per-call pricing, on-chain probing behavior, filtering to alive/hireable only, and the included response-style data fields. This gives agents a clear picture of what the tool does, requires, and returns.

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 description contains valuable details but packs them into one long run-on sentence. The pricing/payment detail is front-loaded before the core purpose and output summary, making it harder to scan. It is not padded, but it is not well-structured or optimally front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so detailed return-value documentation is not required. The description covers authentication, cost, the filtering behavior, and likely output content. The only real gap is the exact behavior and default when the optional `status` parameter is omitted.

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 only one optional `status` parameter with an enum of `hireable` and `alive`, and the description mostly restates those values and their optionality. It does not explicitly say what happens when `status` is omitted, such as returning both states. The description compensates only minimally for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 identifies the resource and action: it is a live map/list of ChainHelix-verified agents on BNB Smart Chain that probes ERC-8004 registrations and returns only alive or hireable agents. It also states the output fields (endpoint, skills, probe age, latency, evidence), making the tool's function unmistakable.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description gives the optional `status` filter and explains that an API key or per-call payment is required, which is useful pre-usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus any sibling or when not to use t. The primary use case is implied rather than stated.

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?