Quote a JSON-RPC call before making it: weighted units it costs (standard 1 · heavy 2 · not offered), and the USD per 1M units on every lane, cheap/balanced/fast. No authentication required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tier | No | cheap | balanced | fast (default balanced) | |
| chain | Yes | Chain slug, e.g. eth_mainnet, base_mainnet, solana_mainnet | |
| method | Yes | JSON-RPC method, e.g. eth_getLogs |
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?
The description states 'No authentication required,' which is a behavioral trait. It implies this is a read-only quote operation, but does not explicitly state that no state change occurs or mention rate limits or other side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden but lacks 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences, providing essential information without unnecessary verbosity. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output type.
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?
The description gives a good overview of the output (weighted units cost and USD per 1M units per lane). It lacks details on response structure, error handling, or edge cases, but for a simple quote tool it is reasonably complete. No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden and does a decent job.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with all three parameters (tier, chain, method) described. The description adds context that tier corresponds to 'cheap/balanced/fast' lanes, but this is already present in the schema. No additional semantic meaning is provided beyond the schema definitions.
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 clearly states the tool's function: quoting a JSON-RPC call by providing weighted unit costs and USD per 1M units for each lane. It uses a specific verb ('Quote') and specifies the resource ('JSON-RPC call'), distinguishing it from billing or gas price tools.
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 phrase 'before making it' gives some usage context, indicating this is a pre-execution check. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like 'get_gas_prices' or 'buy_pack', nor does it describe conditions that would make this tool inappropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.