evm_gasExperimental (outside the core SEC path; not covered by the published accuracy eval, may change or be withdrawn): Current gas price in wei and gwei with block height. Costs $0.01 per call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | No | base or ethereum. Default base. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description's additional caveats are valuable. It discloses that the tool is experimental, may change or be withdrawn, costs $0.01 per call, and reports block height alongside the gas price. This goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent useful operational context about reliability and cost.
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 concise and front-loaded with the most important caveat (experimental status) before stating the core purpose and cost. Every sentence carries essential information without redundancy, making it easy for an agent to process quickly.
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 tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is fully sufficient. It covers the experimental nature, cost, what is returned (wei and gwei with block height), and the default behavior via schema. There is no missing information an agent would need to invoke it correctly.
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 schema already fully describes the only parameter (chain) with values 'base or ethereum' and a default of 'base', so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameter, such as format constraints or examples, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 the current gas price in wei and gwei along with block height, identifying the specific resource and output. However, it does not explicitly mention that it serves Base or Ethereum chains (though this appears in the title), and it does not differentiate itself from the sibling tool gas_optimizer, which could cause confusion about which to use for gas-related queries.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The experimental status and note about being outside the core SEC path are caveats, but they do not instruct the agent on selection criteria or when to prefer this tool over related ones like evm_balance or gas_optimizer. No exclusions or alternative routing is given.
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 written descriptions, but several pairs overlap semantically: token_price/token_report, latest_filings/recent_filings, and institutional_holdings/who_holds/activist_stakes all require careful reading to pick the right one. The overlap is not severe enough for a 2, but it is still more than the occasional confusion.
Names are consistently snake_case and mostly descriptive, but the set does not follow one naming convention. It mixes noun phrases (crop_data, token_report, insider_trades) with verb phrases (lookup_company, compare_filings, verify_financial_claim), and pairs like latest_filings/recent_filings create avoidable confusion.
31 tools is too many for what is nominally an SEC Filings server, and the scope sprawls into unrelated domains such as EVM gas, tokens, prediction markets, crop data, and x402 auditing. The count does not feel earned by a coherent workflow; it feels like an uncurated bundle of endpoints.
The SEC filing workflow is reasonably covered: company lookup, search, latest/recent filings, section extraction, 8-K events, comparisons, ownership filings, and XBRL financial checks are all present. However, there is no full-filing retrieval endpoint, no deep company financial history beyond a single concept, and many non-SEC subdomains are only one-off data points, so the overall surface is still incomplete.