PAID $0.005. Cross-chain gas intelligence: current gas price (wei + gwei) and the USD cost of a typical liquidation tx per chain (Base, Ethereum, Arbitrum, Optimism).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x402Payment | No | Base64 x402 payment header (EIP-3009 exact-evm) for THIS route+price. Omit to receive the machine-readable payment requirements, then call again with it. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose the paid nature of the call and the returned data. It does not mention whether the call is read-only, whether there are rate limits, or what side effects might occur; the two-step x402 payment flow is only explained in the parameter schema, not the tool description.
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?
One front-loaded sentence leads with the critical cost signal ('PAID $0.005') and then packs outputs, units, and chains with no wasted words. It is concise without sacrificing the information an agent needs.
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 lightweight paid info tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers payment, return values, units, and the chain set. The two-step payment flow is not stated in the tool description, but the parameter schema covers it, so the overall definition is complete enough for correct invocation.
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 description coverage is 100%, and the single parameter x402Payment already has a detailed explanation of the omit-then-retry payment flow. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 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 identifies a specific resource—cross-chain gas intelligence—and states the exact outputs: current gas price in wei and gwei, plus the USD cost of a typical liquidation transaction, across four named chains. This distinguishes it immediately from every farm_* sibling, none of which advertise gas data.
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 'cross-chain gas intelligence' phrasing implies the tool should be used when gas prices or liquidation-tx USD costs are needed, and the upfront 'PAID $0.005' warns that it is a paid call. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternative tools among the 14 farm_* siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.