Get a direct recommendation for the cheapest EVM chain right now with savings %. Free, rate limited.
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": "get_cheapest_chain"
}
}| 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?
The description discloses rate limiting and free access, which are behavioral traits. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or has any side effects, leaving some ambiguity given no annotations are provided.
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 extremely concise, using two short sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and key constraints. Every word adds value without redundancy.
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?
For a simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns (a recommendation and savings percentage). It could be more explicit about the output format, but it is sufficient for basic agent use.
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 to document, and the schema coverage is complete. Per the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate since there is no additional semantic detail to provide.
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's function: recommending the cheapest EVM chain with savings percentage. It is specific to EVM chains and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that likely provide raw gas prices.
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?
The description lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling get_gas_* tools. It only mentions 'Free, rate limited', which is a constraint but does not help an agent decide between alternatives.
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.