MGO — Multi-chain Gas Optimizer

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

Discloses it is free and rate limited, but does not describe output format, update frequency, or the meaning of 'savings %'. No annotations provided.

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?

Single sentence with all essential info: action, resource, savings indicator, and free/rate limit. No wasted words.

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?

Adequate for a simple tool with no parameters. Could specify output format or update cadence, but provides core purpose and behavioral traits.

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?

No parameters; schema coverage is 100%. Baseline 4 for zero parameters. Description adds no parameter info, which is fine.

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?

Clearly states it provides a direct recommendation for the cheapest EVM chain, including savings percentage. Distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on gas prices.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison with siblings. Only mentions free and rate limited, but not when to prefer this over gas tools.

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

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

Discloses live gas comparison, specific chains, cost ($0.001 USDC), and no API key. Gives output example with savings %. Without annotations, this provides good behavioral context for a simple read-only tool.

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 sentences, clear and front-loaded. No wasted words. First sentence states core function, second adds usage context and cost.

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, description covers the main aspects: chains, output format, usage context, cost. However, lacks explicit differentiation from sibling 'get_cheapest_chain' which could be relevant.

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?

No parameters; baseline 4 as per guidelines. Description adds meaning by explaining the tool's purpose and output, which is sufficient.

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?

Clear verb 'Find the cheapest EVM chain' and specifies exact chains compared. Provides example output. However, does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool 'get_cheapest_chain' which may have similar purpose.

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?

Explicit when-to-use contexts (before bridging, deploying, any tx with chain choice). Also mentions cost and lack of API key. Does not mention when not to use or alternatives.

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

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

No annotations provided. The description discloses the rate limit (10/hr) and that it is free, which is useful. However, it does not describe the output format or any side effects. For a simple read tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 a single efficient sentence that front-loads the key information (purpose, chains, rate limit). No extra words 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?

Given no parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete for a demo tool. However, it does not specify the structure of the output (e.g., map of chain to price), which would help an agent use the result. Sibling tools hint at more features, but the description does not clarify the scope beyond the listed chains.

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 tool has no parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter semantics. Baseline score of 4 applies since schema coverage is 100% and no further info is required.

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 specifies the verb 'Get', the resource 'free real-time gas prices', and explicitly lists the 4 supported chains (Ethereum, Base, Arbitrum, Optimism). It distinguishes from siblings by implying this is a demo version with a rate limit.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The term 'demo' and the rate limit imply it's for light testing, but alternatives like 'get_gas_premium' are not mentioned. Usage context is only implied.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes coverage of 9 networks, returns cheapest chain with savings %, cost $0.002 USDC, no API key, and platform (Base via x402). Missing details like rate limits or exact output format, but simple 0-param tool makes this adequate.

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, front-loaded with main purpose, followed by details and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy, highly efficient.

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 0 parameters, no output schema, and simple behavior, the description covers purpose, coverage, guidance, cost, and platform. No significant gaps for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Input schema has 0 parameters (100% coverage), so baseline is 4. Description adds no parameter info but none needed.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'find' and resource 'cheapest EVM chain', explicitly lists 9 networks covered, and distinguishes from siblings like get_cheapest_chain by emphasizing 'widest chain coverage' and cross-chain routing context.

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 states when to use: 'Use when you need the widest chain coverage to route a tx to the lowest-fee network.' Also mentions cost and no API key required. Lacks explicit exclusion or alternative comparison but is sufficiently clear for usage context.

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