Find the cheapest EVM chain before sending a transaction. Compares live gas across Ethereum, Base, Arbitrum & Optimism and returns the cheapest chain with savings % (e.g. 'Use Base — saves 99.8% vs Ethereum'). Use before bridging, deploying a contract, or any tx where you can choose the chain. $0.001 USDC via x402 on Base, no API key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses pricing and operation (compares live gas, returns savings %), but does not specify the exact return format or error behaviors.
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 concise, starts with the core purpose, and includes relevant details without unnecessary 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?
Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, and pricing. It is mostly complete but could mention return type explicitly.
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 no parameters, and the description adds value by explaining what the tool returns (cheapest chain with savings %), going beyond the empty schema.
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 finds the cheapest EVM chain and lists specific chains compared, but it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_cheapest_chain', which likely has similar functionality.
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 says 'Use before bridging, deploying a contract, or any tx where you can choose the chain', providing clear context for when to use the tool.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose: get_cheapest_chain gives a direct recommendation, get_gas_basic and get_gas_premium provide comparisons over different chain sets, and get_gas_demo offers free rate-limited data. No overlap in functionality.
Most tools follow the pattern get_gas_* (basic, demo, premium), but get_cheapest_chain breaks the pattern by omitting 'gas'. However, all names are clear and use snake_case with descriptive verbs.
Four tools is appropriate for a focused gas optimizer server: a direct recommendation, two comparison tiers (basic and premium), and a free demo. No excess or missing essential functionality.
The set covers the core need of finding the cheapest EVM chain with different coverage levels and pricing tiers. A gap might be the lack of historical gas data or per-chain detailed info, but for the stated purpose it's adequately complete.