Returns a 0-100 Base network health score plus the underlying metrics behind it. Useful before executing a timing-sensitive transaction. Paid: $0.002 per call via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the paid nature ($0.002 via x402), a critical behavioral trait. It does not disclose rate limits or detailed response format, but the purpose and cost transparency are strong.
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?
Three sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose, then usage guidance, then cost. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.
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?
Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, use case, and cost well. Could mention return example or if results are cached/stale, but complete enough for a simple health-check tool.
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?
There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% by default. The description does not need to explain parameters but adds value with the score range and underlying metrics detail.
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 returns a 0-100 health score plus underlying metrics, and specifies it's for the Base network, distinguishing it from siblings that target Ethereum or Solana.
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?
Explicitly suggests use before executing timing-sensitive transactions, which implies appropriate context. Does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use, but the sibling context is minimal.
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.
Each tool is clearly distinguished by its operation type (network health, priority fee, store, retrieve) and, where applicable, the specific blockchain (Base, Ethereum, Solana). No two tools perform the same function on the same target, so an agent can select the correct tool without ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case. The first six tools use 'get_' plus a descriptive noun (network_health or recommended_priority_fee) followed by the chain name, while the storage tools use 'store_' and 'retrieve_' with 'object'. This predictable convention aids agent selection.
With 8 tools, the server is well-scoped. The six network-related tools cover three blockchains across two recurring operations, and the two storage tools provide minimal yet sufficient coverage. The count is within the ideal range and each tool earns its place.
The network health and fee recommendation tools fully cover their immediate purposes. For object storage, only store and retrieve are provided, lacking delete or list operations. While the core workflow (write and read) is functional, the absence of delete is a minor gap that could require workarounds.