API Acre

crypto.base-gas-estimate

Read-onlyIdempotent

Estimate gas for one Base mainnet transaction context at a resolved block, add a bounded caller-selected buffer, and preserve RPC rejection evidence without signing or broadcasting.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`to`	Yes	The 20-byte Base mainnet transaction destination
`block_tag`	No	Base block tag resolved once before estimation	safe
`call_data`	No	Optional even-length hexadecimal transaction calldata	0x
`value_wei`	No	Unsigned ETH value in wei as a canonical decimal string	0
`from_address`	Yes	The 20-byte Base mainnet sender context; no private key is used
`buffer_percent`	No	Bounded percentage added to the RPC estimate for a suggested gas limit

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	Yes	Structured Base transaction gas estimate result
`meta`	Yes
`service`	Yes
`version`	Yes
`request_id`	Yes	Unique request identifier

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond these: 'preserve RPC rejection evidence', 'resolved block' (implying it resolves once), and 'bounded caller-selected buffer'. It also reiterates 'without signing or broadcasting' which is essential for safety understanding. No contradiction 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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and packed with essential details. Every phrase adds value, with no filler or repetition of schema field names. It is concise yet comprehensive.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters, an output schema, and detailed annotations. The description covers the core behavior, safety guarantees, and key nuances (block resolution, buffer bounds, rejection evidence preservation). The output schema covers return values, so no need to duplicate. The description is complete for an agent to decide and invoke correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to compensate. It does add high-level context for buffer_percent and block_tag ('bounded caller-selected buffer', 'resolved block') but does not explain individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides. 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 the verb 'estimate gas' with the specific resource 'one Base mainnet transaction context'. It also includes key distinguishing details: 'at a resolved block', 'bounded caller-selected buffer', and 'preserve RPC rejection evidence without signing or broadcasting'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like transaction-inspect or contract-read.

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 strong context: it's for estimating gas before sending a transaction, without signing or broadcasting. It implies usage when a gas estimate is needed with a buffer. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the purpose is narrow and clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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

All API Acre 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

A3.8/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Tools are grouped into clear domain prefixes (crypto, data, developer, document, research, web) and each tool name describes a specific function; however, a few umbrella tools like web.full-audit and data.contract overlap with their more targeted counterparts, creating minor ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent pattern: a domain prefix, a dot, and a hyphenated lowercase compound name (e.g., crypto.base-block-inspect, web.seo-audit). This makes naming predictable and easy to scan.

Tool Count1/5

At 63 tools, the surface area is very large and exceeds the 50+ threshold for extreme mismatch. While the tools are organized into six domains, the sheer number makes it difficult for an agent to select efficiently, and some tools are bundled combinations of others.

Completeness5/5

Each domain offers a thorough set of operations: crypto covers address, account, block, contract, events, gas, and transaction inspection; data covers cleaning, conversion, schema, and validation; developer covers code review, dependency/license audits, and test generation; research covers SEC, OFAC, GLEIF, and USAspending; web covers extraction, SEO, security, and performance. No obvious dead ends exist for the read-only/inspection purpose.

Resources

Need Help?