Robinhood Chain gas: current gas price, plus a gas estimate + ETH cost if you send { to, data?, from? }. [x402 paid tool — price $0.002; POST /api/rhchain/gas]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | Target for estimate | |
| data | No | 0x calldata | |
| from | No | Sender for estimate |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is a paid x402 tool ($0.002) and that providing optional parameters yields an estimate. However, it does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or what happens if no parameters are sent (though implied).
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 a single sentence with a bracketed note for payment and endpoint. It is extremely concise, front-loaded with the core functionality, and contains no extraneous 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?
Given the moderate complexity and lack of output schema, the description is somewhat complete but leaves out important details like the units of gas price (e.g., gwei) and the output format. It is adequate but not fully detailed for an AI agent to confidently interpret the result.
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 description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that providing 'to, data?, from?' yields an estimate and ETH cost, while omitting them returns just the current gas price. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, but this contextualization justifies a 4.
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 states the tool returns 'current gas price' and optionally a 'gas estimate + ETH cost' when specific parameters are provided. It distinguishes itself from sibling Robinhood Chain tools like rhchain_balance or rhchain_tx, but does not explicitly contrast with crypto_gas or exec_gas.
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 its siblings, such as crypto_gas or exec_gas. It mentions it is a paid tool but does not explain when the user should prefer this over free alternatives or other chain-specific gas tools.
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.