[PAID $0.003 USDC/call, x402, eip155:8453] Current Base gas price and base fee in wei and gwei, with the block they belong to.
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": "chain_gas_price"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does add substantive behavior: the call costs $0.003 USDC, is paid via x402 on eip155:8453, and returns the block the values belong to. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but for a zero-parameter price getter this is self-evident from the wording.
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?
A single tight sentence with no filler. The only structural quibble is that the bracketed payment/network tag precedes the actual purpose, so the most important information is not strictly first, but the whole thing is short enough that it costs nothing.
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 zero-param, no-output-schema getter, the definition covers the network, the two returned quantities with units, and the associated block, plus the payment terms. Missing only freshness/caching semantics (e.g., whether values are live from the latest block), which is a minor gap.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The mention of wei/gwei and the owning block effectively describes the response shape rather than inputs.
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?
States a specific verb-implied resource: "Current Base gas price and base fee," naming the chain (Base / eip155:8453) and the units returned (wei and gwei). No sibling tool in the list reads gas prices, so an agent can identify this without ambiguity, though the description does not explicitly contrast itself with the chain_* neighbors.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent that needs a gas estimate infers it belongs here. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no note on whether this should be called before constructing a transaction, and no mention of alternatives or that the call is a snapshot at the latest block.
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.