Skip to main content
Glama

US Economic, SEC EDGAR & On-Chain Data (x402)

by net.agentfund

Multi-chain Gas Price

onchain_gas
Read-onlyIdempotent

Current gas price across multiple EVM chains in a single call.

Reads eth_gasPrice on every requested chain in parallel and returns gwei, so you do not have to query each chain's RPC separately and convert units yourself.

Supported chains: base, ethereum, optimism, arbitrum, polygon.

When to use: choosing the cheapest chain to transact on right now, cost estimation before submitting a transaction, monitoring for a low-gas window.

When NOT to use: you need an EIP-1559 fee breakdown (base fee vs priority fee) rather than a single legacy gas price, or historical gas data.

Args:

  • chains (string[], optional): which chains to check. Defaults to all five supported chains.

Returns structuredContent: { "chains": [ { "chain": "base", "chainId": 8453, "gasPriceGwei": 0.006 }, { "chain": "ethereum", "chainId": 1, "gasPriceGwei": 0.0986 }, { "chain": "polygon", "chainId": 137, "gasPriceGwei": 278.97 } ], "source": "Live RPC eth_gasPrice, each chain's public network" }

A chain whose RPC could not be reached returns gasPriceGwei null rather than a stale or fabricated value; if every requested chain fails the call errors and is not billed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainsNoWhich chains to check. Defaults to all five supported chains.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, idempotent), the description adds critical behavioral details: parallel RPC reads, unit conversion to gwei, null handling for unreachable chains, and the policy that the call is not billed if all chains fail. This substantially enriches the agent's understanding.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is well-organized with clear sections (supported chains, when to use, args, returns). It is appropriately detailed—every sentence adds operational value, from the parallel RPC behavior to the failure semantics.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema, the description fully explains the return format via an example, including a nested 'chains' array and 'source' field. It also covers error behavior and billing, making the tool's behavior clear for an agent.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema already fully documents the 'chains' parameter (enum + description), so baseline is 3. The description adds the default behavior ('Defaults to all five supported chains') and clarifies the aggregated nature of the call, providing extra value beyond the schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states it returns current gas prices across multiple EVM chains in a single call, with a specific verb ('Reads eth_gasPrice') and resource ('multiple EVM chains'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing the multi-chain aggregation and unit conversion.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections give concrete use cases (cheapest chain selection, cost estimation, low-gas monitoring) and exclusions (EIP-1559 breakdown, historical data). This provides clear guidance for tool selection.

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

All US Economic, SEC EDGAR & On-Chain Data (x402) toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool targets a distinct resource and action. The macro_* tools each cover one economic indicator, the edgar_* tools cover different SEC filing types, and the onchain_* tools are split by chain scope (single vs multi), asset type, and operation. Even the two data-cleaning tools are clearly distinct (JSON repair vs table parsing). No two tools appear to do the same thing.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names follow a mostly consistent snake_case pattern with domain prefixes: macro_*, edgar_*, onchain_*. The exceptions are bls_cpi (could be macro_cpi) and the utility tools structured_json_repair and tabular_to_json, which break the prefix pattern but are still descriptive and predictable. Overall, the convention is clear with minor deviations.

Tool Count3/5

21 tools is in the 'heavy' range (16-25). However, the server spans three distinct domains (US economic data, SEC EDGAR, on-chain data), and each tool serves a unique purpose within its domain. While it feels dense, the breadth is justified by the server's stated multi-domain scope.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the major needs in each domain: key macro indicators, common EDGAR filings and searches, and core on-chain reads. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no PPI, no historical on-chain balances, no company CIK lookup), but agents can work around these with existing tools or by combining them.

Resources