ChainHelix for Machines

whale_flows

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. Large transfer counts and USD totals per chain. window in hours default 24 max 168, threshold 500000 USD. Chains covered: every chain except bitcoin

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chain`	No
`window`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`meta`	No
`receipt`	No
`results`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 6, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / chain / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "bitcoin",
-  "ethereum",
-  "bnb",
-  "solana",
-  "avalanche",
-  "xrp",
-  "tron",
-  "polygon",
-  "sui"
-]New value: +[
+  "ethereum",
+  "bnb",
+  "solana",
+  "avalanche",
+  "xrp",
+  "tron",
+  "polygon",
+  "sui"
+]

Changed5 schema fields changedSep 5, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / meta

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "contentHash": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "generated": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "priceUsd": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "validUntil": {
+      "type": "number"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / receipt

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "bytes": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "covers": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "issuedAt": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "lookup": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "network": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "nonce": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "seq": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "settleTx": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "sha256": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "tool": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / results / items / properties / largest

Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "additionalProperties": false,
+    "properties": {
+      "t": {
+        "type": [
+          "number",
+          "null"
+        ]
+      },
+      "tx": {
+        "type": [
+          "string",
+          "null"
+        ]
+      },
+      "valueUsd": {
+        "type": "number"
+      }
+    },
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / results / items / properties / latestAt
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": [
+    "number",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / results / items / properties / source
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

First observedAug 17, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose material traits: authentication/cost requirements, fixed 500000 USD threshold, window bounds of 24-168 hours, and bitcoin exclusion. It does not cover pagination or rate limits, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need for return-format details.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description opens with a long billing sentence and only later states what the tool actually returns. The fragmentary phrasing and the heavy focus on payment mechanics make it poorly front-loaded for an agent trying to understand the tool quickly.

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?

For a query tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential invocation context: authentication/cost, the metric returned, window bounds, USD threshold, and chain coverage. It is slightly incomplete on chain-omission behavior and the enum discrepancy, but an agent can still make the call correctly using the schema.

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 gives only a bare enum and a bare number, so the description adds useful meaning for window (hours, default 24, max 168) and threshold. However, the chain parameter remains underspecified: 'every chain except bitcoin' conflicts with the eight-value enum, and it is not stated what omitting the optional chain parameter means.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies the core output: large transfer counts and USD totals per chain, with a 500000 USD threshold, which aligns with the whale_flows name. It lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists', and it does not differentiate from the similar-sounding stablecoin_flows sibling.

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 fixed threshold and 'every chain except bitcoin' give an implied use case: large non-bitcoin transfer flows. It provides window defaults and chain coverage, but it never names an alternative or states when to prefer another tool such as stablecoin_flows.

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?