Abstraxn

Get gas price info

network.gas_info

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get the current gas price and EIP-1559 fee hints for an EVM chain. Free, read-only, no wallet needed.

Use this to estimate transaction cost or explain fees to a user before they send a transaction. chain is required. Supported chains: ethereum, sepolia, polygon, amoy, bsc, bsc-testnet, base, base-sepolia, tempo, tempo-testnet, arbitrum-one, monad, skale-base-sepolia.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chain`	Yes	EVM network slug. One of: ethereum, sepolia, polygon, amoy, bsc, bsc-testnet, base, base-sepolia, tempo, tempo-testnet, arbitrum-one, monad, skale-base-sepolia

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`chain`	No
`error`	No
`message`	No
`gasPrice`	No	Current gas price in wei.
`timestamp`	No	Unix ms timestamp of the reading.
`gasPriceGwei`	No	Current gas price in gwei.
`maxFeePerGas`	No
`supportsEip1559`	No
`maxPriorityFeePerGas`	No

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: 'Free, read-only, no wallet needed' clarifies auth and cost requirements. No contradictions with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value: purpose, usage, and required parameter. No fluff or redundant information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple single-parameter tool with a complete output schema and strong annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage guidance, and parameter requirement. No gaps in essential information.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter 'chain' already has a comprehensive description with an enum. The description repeats the chain list but adds no semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Get the current gas price and EIP-1559 fee hints for an EVM chain,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like network.blocknumber and network.token_price by focusing on gas/fee information.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear usage context: 'Use this to estimate transaction cost or explain fees to a user before they send a transaction.' It implies when to use it but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, which would warrant a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Abstraxn tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Tools are grouped by domain (market, network, places, social, travel, web3) and each has a distinct purpose. However, within the 'network' group, tools like token_price, token_info, and market.crypto/price_feed could be confused for similar price lookups, but descriptions clarify their differences (free vs paid, DEX vs CoinGecko).

Naming Consistency3/5

The naming uses a dot-separated domain prefix (e.g., market.crypto, network.blocknumber, places.lookup) which is consistent in structure, but the action selection within each tool (e.g., search vs price_feed) is not reflected in the tool name itself. This hybrid approach is clear but not strictly uniform.

Tool Count4/5

With 11 tools covering a wide range of domains (crypto, network, places, social, travel, web3), the count is appropriate for a multi-purpose server. Each domain has a focused set of actions, so the tool count feels well-scoped without being excessive.

Completeness3/5

The server covers a broad but shallow surface across multiple domains. For example, crypto market data is well-covered, but places lacks a reverse geocode or photo tool. Travel has only flight and hotel search, missing car rentals or activities. The network domain is relatively complete for read operations, but lacks write support beyond prepare_transfer.

Resources

Need Help?