Skip to main content
Glama

Sausage Onchain

by com.professorsausages.x402

Cheapest chain right now

gas_compare

Rank every supported chain by all-in USD transaction cost — the 'where should I send this' routing decision, with the OP-stack L1 data fee included. 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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
gasNoOptional gas limit override.
speedNoFee tier to compare at.standard
tx_typeNoTransaction shape to price on every chain.transfer
x_paymentNoOptional 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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It transparently reveals the paid nature and the two-step payment protocol, and notes the inclusion of the OP-stack L1 data fee. However, it does not describe the output format or error behavior, which would be useful for full transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and metric, followed by the essential payment flow details. It is concise, well-structured, and every sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's moderate complexity (paid flow, ranking, fee inclusion) and lack of output schema, the description covers the purpose, payment protocol, and alternative tool. It does not specify the ranking output format, but the context is sufficient for most agents to understand how to invoke and reason about the tool.

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% and each parameter already has a detailed description. The tool description adds context for the payment flow but does not provide significant new meaning beyond what the schema already explains for gas, speed, tx_type, and x_payment. Thus the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb 'Rank' with a clear resource ('every supported chain') and a precise metric (all-in USD transaction cost). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning it as a routing decision and explicitly naming the 'pricing' tool as a free alternative, making its purpose unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly states when to use the tool (routing decisions) and contrasts it with the free 'pricing' tool that lists all prices at once. It also provides clear usage instructions for the paid flow: call without x_payment to receive terms, sign them, then call again with x_payment.

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

All Sausage Onchain toolsInspect
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