Current gas price on Base in gwei: base fee, suggested priority fee and max fee per gas, read live from the chain. Price: $0.01 USDC on Base via x402.
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": "base_gas"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the data is read live from the chain (freshness) and the call costs $0.01 USDC via x402, which is a material behavioral fact an agent should know before invoking.
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, both earning their place: the first front-loads purpose and returned fields, the second discloses the payment cost. No filler 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?
With zero parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what is returned, the unit, that it is live chain data, and the invocation cost. Nothing material is missing for a tool of this simplicity.
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 takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to clarify. It correctly lists the returned fee components and their unit (gwei), but that is output rather than parameter semantics.
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?
States a specific resource and what it returns: current Base gas price in gwei with base fee, priority fee, and max fee per gas, read live from chain. This is clearly distinguishable in substance from base_estimate_gas (which estimates a transaction's gas), but the description never names or explicitly contrasts that sibling, 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the content (fetch live fee data before sending a transaction), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of the alternative base_estimate_gas, and no stated preconditions. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.
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.