Should my agent depend on the MCP server io.github.techleadevelopers/chainfx-mcp?

Verdict: allow — rich-solo — safe to depend on As of 2026-09-13T06:22:43Z: a dated observation with receipts, not a warranty.

ChainFX Capability Network

io.github.techleadevelopers/chainfx-mcp

Agent Pay and planning graph for stablecoin commerce.

— the operator's own registry description reported

Publisher io.github.techleadevelopers · first seen 2026-08-12 · endpoint https://api.chainfx.store/mcp/initialize

allow

verdict

rich-solo

cluster

ok_tools

answers

tools served

Dependency rating derived

allow
allow — alive & usable · kind unknown · V n/a

allow — because answers ●, 35 tools legible (band A) ●, no confirmed drift in 7 probes ●; not yet checked: truth (1 attempts unverifiable, 0 disagreements)

Cluster rich-solo · distinctiveness 0.567 (moderate). Every figure is a percentile or class within the 19,148-server census — see the whole spectrum.

Does it answer? Q1 · observed

answersalive_tools

latency130 ms

vs populationtypical

protocolcurrent

authopen

Can it be used? Q4 · observed

tools35

vs populationhigh

capabilities3

harnessA

Did it hold when checked? Q3–Q4 · derived

identitysolo

servers on its host1

verifiabilityunassessed

duplicate inventoryno

drift events0

answers true0/0 agree

🔏 Signed receipt rr_299f76ca5933f94e19c28d56 · ed25519 · key rs-rcpt-2026-08 — this rating is tamper-evident; an agent gets the full signature from check_server and can verify it against the published key.

Q1Does it answer?alive & usable — 7 probes ●evidence ↓

Q2What is it?kind unknown ● evidence ↓

Q3Can it be checked?V n/a for this kind ◐evidence ↓

Q4Did it hold?harness A · truth not yet run · no drift ●evidence ↓

Q5What company does it keep?rich-solo · 1 on its host (context, not verdict) ◐evidence ↓

● observed · ◐ derived · ○ reported — the verdict synthesizes Q1–Q4; Q5 is context. Methodology →

History observed

Every probe we made, oldest → newest (7 shown, 2026-08-12 → 2026-09-13). Green answered · amber answered-but-walled · red no useful answer. A gap in our cadence is a gap in coverage, not evidence about the server.

changelog (2 events)

date	type	what changed
2026-09-13	outcome	ok_tools (was not_mcp)
2026-08-12	outcome	first probe: not_mcp

What kind of tools these are derived

Verification only means something relative to a tool's NATURE — an email-sender has no "true answer", a generator has no answer key. Classification evidence: classified from tool names/descriptions/annotations WE OBSERVED. What checking applies to each kind (the full methodology →):

nature	tools	meaning	what checking applies
unclassified	21	not classifiable from its text	Tier-1 only until its tools describe themselves
retrieval-public	7	serves public facts	truth-checkable against a public source — the V-ladder applies in full
action	5	changes the world	no true answer exists; we check the CONTRACT (destructive/read-only/idempotent declarations, error legibility) and never fire real actions
generative	1	creates content	no answer key exists; disclosure + stability checks, never truth verdicts
predictive	1	claims about the future	scoreable only in retrospect — the archive scores yesterday's predictions against today's outcome

Tools last seen observed

chooseRoute createPaymentIntent create_webhook_subscription detect_anomalies dryRunCapability executeCapability getAgentPolicy getCapability getCapabilityContract getCapabilityPricing getEIPCapabilities getPaymentIntent getPurchase getUsage get_order_status get_rates listAgentGrants listAgentPaymentIntents listAssets listCapabilities listPaymentIntents list_webhook_events list_webhook_subscriptions market_analysis prepareCapabilityPurchase prepareEIPTypedIntent price_prediction purchaseCapability quote searchCapabilities settlementStatus summarize_transactions trade trade_recommendation trigger_test_webhook

Harness readiness observed

Can an agent's harness pick this tool and call it correctly? Graded on the three things an agent reads — name, description, typed parameters. Band A — an agent can pick and call these reliably.

legibility check	tools passing	ok
name is clear & specific	35/35	✓
has a description	35/35	✓
description is substantive	35/35	✓
parameters are typed	35/35	✓
parameters are described	34/35	34/35

35 of 35 tools graded · 35 with a captured input schema. RS-008, Tier-1 — no domain knowledge, applies to any tool. “Alive” is not the same as “usable”.

Truth checks observed

Not yet confirmed — 1 attempt(s) currently unverifiable (rate limits, walls, or unmappable schemas — never counted against the server) · 0 disagreements.

claim class	key	verdict	primary source
fx-rates	EURUSD	unverifiable	ecb-fx

Protocol conformance observed

2025-06-18

protocol version

—

session model

1.6.4

server version chainfx-mcp

Capabilities: prompts resources tools

Drift observed

No confirmed drift on record. Baseline set 2026-09-13; changes appear here after human review.

raw probe records

probed (UTC)	outcome	http	ms	protocol
2026-09-13T06:18:20Z	ok_tools	200	130	2025-06-18
2026-09-06T06:17:11Z	not_mcp	200	132
2026-08-30T06:16:59Z	not_mcp	200	138
2026-08-23T06:14:19Z	not_mcp	200	133
2026-08-16T06:13:49Z	not_mcp	200	107
2026-08-14T20:00:15Z	not_mcp	200	87
2026-08-12T05:35:27Z	not_mcp	200	88

Watch or embed this verdict

Operators: put the live verdict in your README — it updates with every census, links back here, and is a dated observation, never a warranty:

[![Robin Saige verdict](https://robinsaige.com/badge/io.github.techleadevelopers/chainfx-mcp.svg)](https://robinsaige.com/s/io.github.techleadevelopers/chainfx-mcp)

Depend on it? Subscribe to its change feed — outcome changes and confirmed drift, no account needed. Building on it? The full dossier as JSON — verdict, rating, truth checks, history — stable enough to gate CI on.

← overview

Operator of this server? Everything we hold about it is on this page — free, no account, for anyone. Wrong attribution, stale probe, misclassification? Dispute this record →