Skip to main content
Glama

intel

by io.chainhelix
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

bridge_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. Layer two bridge activity over a window, read from the Ethereum side: base and optimism deposits with the ETH they carry, and withdrawals proven and finalized (count only, the events carry no value: valueEth null); arbitrum as L1 to L2 message count only (no value, no withdrawals). window in hours, default 24, max 720; each hour is published about 90 minutes after it ends. Omit l2 for all three

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
l2No
windowNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
metaNo
receiptNo
resultsYes

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. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • 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: +{
+  "l2": "data.l2",
+  "window": "market.window"
+}
  5. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • 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 / latestBucket
      Added value: +{
+  "type": [
+    "number",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / results / items / properties / source
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
  6. Added

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 load and does well: it discloses auth/payment paths (ChainHelix bearer key, Binance b402 in four stablecoins, x402 on Base), a data-freshness constraint (~90 minutes after each hour closes), and value semantics (withdrawal counts carry valueEth null, arbitrum is message-count only). Missing rate limits and error behavior, but this is substantially richer than a bare description.

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 parameter and data-semantics content is dense and earns its space, but the opening sentence is a sprawling payment enumeration with four coin names and two networks that is awkwardly placed ahead of the tool's actual purpose. Reordering purpose first and compressing billing into one clause would make it significantly scannable.

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 return structure need not be explained; the description instead covers the essentials an agent needs: auth/payment, latency, parameter units and defaults, and what value fields contain per chain. It is close to complete for a two-optional-parameter analytics tool, with only rate/error behavior left unstated.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: 'window in hours, default 24, max 720' supplies units, default and bound that the schema's bare 'number' type lacks, and 'Omit l2 for all three' documents the no-enum omission case. The three enum values themselves are left to the schema.

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 second sentence gives a specific verb and resource: 'Layer two bridge activity over a window, read from the Ethereum side,' and enumerates what each chain contributes (base/optimism deposits with ETH, arbitrum message count). That is enough to separate it from siblings like stablecoin_flows or whale_flows. However, the ledger starts with payment/auth boilerplate rather than the purpose, which weakens front-loading and forces the agent to read past billing details to learn what the tool does.

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?

The only usage instruction is 'Omit l2 for all three,' which covers one parameter choice but not when to reach for this tool over bridge-adjacent siblings. No statement of when-not-to-use, no prerequisites beyond payment, and no named alternatives.

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

All intel toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources