Skip to main content
Glama

agent_standing

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. The standing of one ERC-8004 agent on BNB Smart Chain from what it did, not what it declares: its evidence tier from the paid ERC-8183 hires ChainHelix funded and the delivery checks sealed on opBNB, whether it answers right now from the newest probe, and the feedback rows the registry holds for it graded by pattern (on BSC today they come from a rating farm). Every count carries its evidence: job ids, transactions, the registry read. Signed (EIP-191, the published ChainHelix statement signer), valid 24 hours. ChainHelix agents come back as first_party: evidence only, no verdict, no signature. Free without the signature at agents.chainhelix.io/standing/.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesthe ERC-8004 token id on BNB Smart Chain

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
nowYes
metaNo
nameNo
pageNo
tierYes
agentNo
errorNo
ownerNo
probeNo
verifyNo
receiptNo
versionNo
declaredNo
nowMeansNo
paidHiresNo
statementNo
tierMeansNo
firstPartyNo
ownExampleNo
howToVerifyNo
sealedChecksNo
registryFeedbackNo
permanentEvidenceNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / x-lexicon / bundleSha256
      Previous value: -"a1c2e10fd3177d6b4d59ca78693e8fb36880165cf0f735f680dd86a510411178"New value: +"e5b4290024a229f2bdf97f8fc6a0079c3fe13b77267f41fdcffeb8b26aa1c41e"
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / x-lexicon / bundleSha256
      Previous value: -"1eeb782ee15fe69fc80776948e0556fa6b795e210e6305935b2c97b73d955cda"New value: +"a1c2e10fd3177d6b4d59ca78693e8fb36880165cf0f735f680dd86a510411178"
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / x-lexicon / bundleSha256
      Previous value: -"c014292cad7497ce9fd68c33345ac32cb42b672c8e77d6c749c26e162cc207e4"New value: +"1eeb782ee15fe69fc80776948e0556fa6b795e210e6305935b2c97b73d955cda"
  4. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / x-aliases
      Added value: +{
      +  "id": [
      +    "Id",
      +    "ID",
      +    "@id"
      +  ]
      +}
    • addedInput schema / x-lexicon
      Added value: +{
      +  "bundleSha256": "c014292cad7497ce9fd68c33345ac32cb42b672c8e77d6c749c26e162cc207e4",
      +  "name": "ChainHelix Agentic Lexicon",
      +  "resolve": "lexicon_resolve",
      +  "spec": "lexicon_spec",
      +  "version": "0.1.0"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / x-vocab
      Added value: +{
      +  "id": "data.id"
      +}
  5. Added

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses payment/auth requirements, signed EIP-191 output valid for 24 hours, first_party behavior with no verdict, and the evidence components (probe, feedback, delivery checks). This is unusually transparent.

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 is information-dense but front-loads payment details before stating the actual purpose, and the second sentence is a long, clause-heavy list. Every detail earns its place, but structure and front-loading could be improved.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description thoroughly covers the non-schema context: authentication, payment rails, evidence provenance, signature validity, first-party behavior, and a free alternative. It is complete for a single-parameter tool, though it omits edge-case behavior like missing IDs.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already defines 'id' as the ERC-8004 token id on BNB Smart Chain. The description mentions the same concept but adds no new parameter-specific semantics beyond the implicit free URL with '<id>'.

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 ('standing of one ERC-8004 agent on BNB Smart Chain') and its evidence-based nature ('from what it did, not what it declares'). It distinguishes itself from bulk or spec siblings by emphasizing 'one' agent and the concrete data sources.

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?

Usage is implied through 'The standing of one ERC-8004 agent' and the first-party vs. third-party distinction, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It gives payment/auth prerequisites but does not name alternatives such as standing_bulk or search_agents.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources