Sausage Onchain

EVM chain registry

chain_info

Canonical record for an EVM chain — name, native currency, explorers, liveness-scored public RPCs. view='rpcs' returns only the ranked, eth_chainId-probed RPC list; view='wallet_config' returns a ready-to-submit EIP-3085 wallet_addEthereumChain object; view='search' finds chains by name or symbol; view='l2s' lists a parent chain's L2s. Paid: call without x_payment to receive this call's exact terms (amount, asset, network), sign them, then call again with x_payment. The free pricing tool lists every price at once.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`q`	No	Name/symbol fragment (view='search').
`view`	No	Which shape of chain data to return.	record
`parent`	No	Parent chain id for view='l2s'.	1
`chain_id`	No	Numeric chain id (required for record/rpcs/wallet_config).
`x_payment`	No	Optional signed x402 payment payload (base64, what the X-PAYMENT header carries). Omit to receive the exact payment terms; sign them (e.g. @x402/fetch) and call again with this argument to settle and get the data.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the paid nature with the exact two-step payment flow (call without x_payment for terms, sign, then call again with x_payment). It also documents behavioral details like liveness-scored RPCs and eth_chainId probing.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is compact but dense; every sentence adds a distinct piece of information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then systematically covers views and payment. Slightly long but efficient.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains what each view returns (ranked RPC list, EIP-3085 object, etc.) and the payment workflow. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The schema covers 100% of parameters with good descriptions, but the description adds meaning by explaining the x_payment two-step protocol and the semantic differences between view values, which the schema only names with enum strings.

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 states it is a 'Canonical record for an EVM chain' and enumerates the exact data types (name, native currency, explorers, RPCs). It differentiates from siblings like gas_price and spot_price by focusing on chain metadata, and further disambiguates internal views.

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?

Provides clear per-view usage guidance ('view='rpcs' returns...', 'view='search' finds...') and explicitly points to an alternative tool ('The free `pricing` tool lists every price at once'), telling the agent when not to pay per-call. It does not exhaustively contrast with all siblings, but the key alternative is covered.

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

All Sausage Onchain 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

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: address screening, chain info, ENS resolution, data discovery, gas routing, gas pricing, NFT scam checking, pricing metadata, data requests, spot prices, swap quotes, and token safety. Although gas_compare and gas_price both involve gas, one ranks chains while the other gives fees for a single chain; token_safety and nft_scam_check target different asset types. No two tools are likely to be confused.

Naming Consistency2/5

Names are all lowercase snake_case but follow no single convention. Some are verb-first (find_data, request_data, swap_quote), some noun-first with a verb (address_screen, ens_resolve, gas_compare), and several are noun-noun compounds (chain_info, gas_price, spot_price, token_safety). This mixed pattern makes the naming feel inconsistent, even though each name is readable.

Tool Count5/5

With 12 tools, the server sits comfortably in the well-scoped range for a blockchain data/utility provider. Each tool addresses a distinct need, and the count is not excessive for the breadth of on-chain operations covered. Every tool appears to earn its place without redundancy.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers a broad set of on-chain needs: screening (address, token, NFT), pricing (spot, swap, gas), identity (ENS), chain metadata, and meta-tools for discovery and requests. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct transaction/block inspection or portfolio-level functions, but these are not core to the server's apparent purpose and agents can work around them using find_data to locate additional endpoints.

Resources

Need Help?