Ethereum gas: low, average, fast, base fee. $0.005.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"api_key": "<api_key>"
},
"name": "get_gas"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It hints at a cost ('$0.005') but does not clarify if this is a fee per call or a sample value. No mention of rate limits, authentication behavior, or data freshness. The parameter 'api_key' is not explained.
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 very short (one sentence), which is concise but lacks structure. The inclusion of '$0.005' is cryptic and reduces clarity. It could be reordered to better separate gas types from pricing info.
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 simple nature of the tool and absence of output schema/annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return format, how to interpret the gas values, or how the api_key should be provided. The user cannot fully understand the tool's behavior.
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?
Schema coverage is 0% (no descriptions on parameters). The description adds no meaning to 'api_key' or any other parameter. The user is left to guess the format or purpose of the key.
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 identifies the tool as retrieving Ethereum gas fees (low, average, fast, base fee). The inclusion of '$0.005' is ambiguous but does not obscure the main purpose. Sibling 'get_gas_all' suggests this is Ethereum-specific, adding implicit differentiation.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_gas_all'. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling list.
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.