Live gas prices across major chains (Base, Ethereum, Arbitrum, Optimism, Polygon, BSC) with estimated USD cost of a swap. Send { chains? }. Time and route transactions for the cheapest execution. [x402 paid tool — price $0.005; POST /api/exec/gas]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chains | No | Optional array of chains; defaults to all supported |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is a paid x402 tool with a price of $0.005 and the API endpoint. This is valuable behavioral context beyond just functionality. No contradictions.
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?
Description is succinct with three sentences, front-loading the main purpose and including practical details (cost, endpoint) at the end. No redundant information.
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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers main behavior, supported chains, cost, and usage hint. Could be more complete by mentioning return format, but not essential.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with one parameter (chains) described. The description adds 'Send { chains? }.' which essentially repeats the schema info. Minimal added value beyond the schema.
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?
Description clearly states 'Live gas prices across major chains' and lists specific chains (Base, Ethereum, Arbitrum, etc.), including 'estimated USD cost of a swap.' This distinguishes from siblings like crypto_gas or exec_quote which may not focus on cost or multi-chain comparison.
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?
Description implies usage context: 'Time and route transactions for the cheapest execution.' It also mentions the optional chains parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives among siblings.
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.
Tools are organized by domain prefix (e.g., 'crypto_', 'rh_', 'snipe_'), which helps distinguish between areas. Within each domain, they serve distinct purposes, though some overlap between domains exists (e.g., price data appears in multiple groups). Overall, an agent can navigate effectively.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with a domain prefix and a verb_noun combination (e.g., 'compliance_risk', 'rh_stock', 'snipe_honeypot'). This makes the API predictable and easy to explore.
With 159 tools, the server is extremely large. While the broad scope of web3 and utility functions justifies many tools, the count is significantly above the typical range for a coherent toolkit, potentially overwhelming agents and increasing selection error.
The toolkit covers a wide range of web3 operations: crypto, DeFi, compliance, safety, scheduling, memory, etc. There are no obvious major gaps for its intended purpose, though some niche areas might be missing.