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. Bitcoin queue depth now vs the past 30 days plus the current fastest fee
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| p90_30d | Yes | ||
| median30d | Yes | ||
| fastestFee | Yes | ||
| pendingTransactions | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the auth/payment requirement (bearer token or per-call fee) and indicates the data scope (current vs 30-day historical queue depth, current fastest fee). However, it does not mention rate limits, return format, or whether it is a read-only operation, though the output schema covers return structure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is relatively short but poorly structured: it leads with a long payment/authentication clause before stating the actual purpose. The purpose is relegated to the end. It is concise but not front-loaded, making it less scannable than it could be.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It tells the user about required authentication/payment and what data is returned (Bitcoin queue depth comparison and fastest fee). The output schema compensates for any missing return-format details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter details. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, the description need not add parameter meaning. The description focuses on what the tool returns, which is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool's purpose: reporting Bitcoin queue depth now versus the past 30 days and the current fastest fee. Although it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'returns', the resource and scope are specific enough to understand what the tool does and to distinguish it from sibling tools such as prices or market_state.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions authentication and payment requirements, which are operational prerequisites, not usage context. There is no statement about suitable scenarios or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but some overlap exists among report tools (situation_report, deep_report, market_state) and spec tools (attest_spec, proof_spec). These could confuse an agent selecting the most appropriate endpoint.
Tool names use consistent snake_case and are descriptive, but follow mixed patterns: verb_noun for actions (buy_key, list_attestations) and bare nouns or noun phrases for data endpoints (prices, congestion, wall_map). This is readable but not fully uniform.
With 26 tools, the set is heavy and covers multiple domains (attestation, market data, key management, webhooks). It sits just above the borderline for comfort, but the breadth is justifiable given the server's multi-purpose nature.
The tool surface provides full lifecycle coverage for attestation (create, read, verify), key management (buy, claim, status), and webhooks (register, status, unregister), plus a wide range of market data endpoints. There are no obvious gaps or dead ends.