Skip to main content
Glama

bridge_gas

Mini's TrollBridge — live gas prices per chain. TOLLED: $0.005 USDC per call via x402. If you cannot pay, this tool returns the 402 payment instructions instead of data. Optional limit 1-200.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "bridge_gas"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax items to return (1-200). Default 50.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Max items to return (1-200). Default 50.",
      +  "maximum": 200,
      +  "minimum": 1,
      +  "type": "integer"
      +}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it names the exact cost ($0.005 USDC per call), the payment protocol (x402), and the failure mode (returns 402 payment instructions instead of data). It omits return format and rate-limit behavior beyond per-call cost, keeping it from a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before cost and fallback details. The 'Mini's TrollBridge' branding is minor filler but nothing bloats the definition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter, no-output-schema read tool, it covers purpose, cost, and failure behavior adequately. Return format and pagination are left implicit, but the essential info needed to call it correctly is present.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the limit parameter, its range 1-200, and default 50 are already documented in the schema. The description only restates 'Optional limit 1-200' with no added meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific resource and scope: 'live gas prices per chain', which is enough to distinguish it from generic price data among the bridge_* siblings. It does not explicitly name which sibling to prefer for a related need, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It discloses a real prerequisite (payment via x402) and the fallback when payment is unavailable, which is genuinely useful context. However it never says when to choose this over bridge_prices or other siblings, nor any exclusions, so usage is only implied.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.