Returns a 0-100 Ethereum mainnet 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?
The description discloses the cost: 'Paid: $0.002 per call via x402.', providing important financial context for the agent. As no behavioral annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden for transparency. It does not detail what 'underlying metrics' are returned, the update frequency, data source, or any other behavioral traits beyond the cost. Given zero annotations, a score of 3 is appropriate as it adds key cost information but leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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 short sentences, each earning its place. The first sentence states what the tool does. The second provides usage guidance and cost info. There is no fluff or repetition, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose.
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 tool has zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. Given this simplicity, the description is arguably complete for its purpose: it says what it returns, when to use it, and its cost. However, it omits details on the 'underlying metrics' or the score's meaning (e.g., higher is better), which a cautious agent might need. With no output schema, a bit more on the return format would boost completeness, but for a 0-param tool, current coverage is adequate.
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 description coverage is 100% (0 parameters), so the baseline is high. The description adds that the tool requires no parameters because it returns a current live score, which the schema alone cannot convey (it only shows an empty properties object). This goes beyond the schema by implying real-time data pricing and intended use case.
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 uses the specific verb 'Returns' with a clear resource: 'Ethereum mainnet network health score plus the underlying metrics behind it'. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tools by referencing other networks and explicitly calling out the Ethereum mainnet, making selection clear.
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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Useful before executing a timing-sensitive transaction'. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it, the context of timing sensitivity, combined with the sibling tools targeting other networks (Base, Solana), clearly implies it is for Ethereum-specific cases only.
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.