EIP-1559 gas recommendations (slow/standard/fast: max fee + priority fee, wei and gwei) computed from FlexYield's multi-provider pool over the last 20 blocks. EVM chains only, e.g. eth_mainnet, base_mainnet, arbitrum_one, optimism_mainnet, polygon_pos.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | Yes | EVM chain slug, e.g. 'eth_mainnet' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It reveals the calculation source (FlexYield multi-provider pool), the recency window (last 20 blocks), the output granularity (slow/standard/fast with max and priority fees in wei/gwei), and the supported chain type. It does not discuss errors or endpoint access limits, but it is much richer than a minimal description.
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?
Two purposeful sentences front-load the output type and units, then give computation source and valid-chain guidance. There is no filler or repetition.
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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the main return values (fee tiers, fee components, units), data source, and supported chains. It stops short of describing error conditions or exact response keys, but the tool is simple enough that this 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 schema already documents the single chain parameter at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds several concrete valid chain slugs and the EVM-only requirement, giving an agent more useful examples than the schema's single example.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: it provides EIP-1559 gas recommendations with fee levels and units. It is clearly distinct from sibling get_token_prices, and the 'EVM chains only' constraint plus examples define the exact scope.
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?
The description gives clear context for when the tool applies: gas fee recommendations computed over the last 20 blocks, on EVM chains, with valid chain examples. It does not explicitly name alternatives among siblings, but the resource and chain restriction make the intended use unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.