[$0.002 USDC per call via x402] Live gas price (wei and gwei) for Base or Ethereum mainnet from public RPC.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "gas"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | No | base (default) or ethereum |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the cost ($0.002 USDC per call via x402), the data source (public RPC), and the output units (wei and gwei). However, it doesn't mention whether this is a safe read-only operation, response format details, or failure behavior when RPC is down. The cost disclosure is notable transparency but the overall behavioral picture is incomplete.
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 compact sentence that front-loads the critical pricing/cost information and then states the core function with units and supported chains. Every element earns its place with zero redundancy or wasted words.
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 1-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides the essential context: cost, chains, output units, and data source. It could add what the response looks like (though output schema is absent, not required), but for a tool of this simplicity it covers the agent's key selection needs adequately.
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% and there's only one parameter (chain) which is fully described in the schema as 'base (default) or ethereum'. The description adds the default behavior ('base (default)') context and the units of output, but the schema already documents the parameter adequately. The description adds minimal additional value beyond confirming the chain options and default.
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 it provides live gas price in wei and gwei for Base or Ethereum mainnet via a public RPC. The verb 'gas price' combined with the specific chains and units makes the purpose unambiguous, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like price, ohlc, and market_summary which serve different market data purposes.
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 specifies the supported chains (Base or Ethereum mainnet) and implies when to use it (when live gas price data is needed). While it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives, the sibling tools are clearly different domains (market sentiment, OHLC data, screening), so the usage context is reasonably clear. It doesn't mention any exclusion scenarios.
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.