Find the cheapest EVM chain across 9 networks before transacting. Covers Ethereum, Base, Arbitrum, Optimism, BNB, Polygon, Avalanche, zkSync & Hyperliquid; returns the cheapest chain with savings % for cross-chain routing decisions. Use when you need the widest chain coverage to route a tx to the lowest-fee network. $0.002 USDC via x402 on Base, no API key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the return value (cheapest chain with savings %) and 'no API key' requirement, but it does not clarify side effects, data freshness, rate limits, or what the '$0.002 USDC via x402 on Base' phrase means (likely an example cost or output format, but ambiguous). This lack of detail reduces transparency.
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 reasonably concise but contains redundancy: 'cheapest EVM chain' and 'cheapest chain' are repeated, and 'widest chain coverage' and 'lowest-fee network' are synonyms. It could be streamlined, but it is not overly verbose.
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?
The description provides enough context to understand the tool's purpose and output (cheapest chain with savings %). It also hints at cost (e.g., '$0.002 USDC') and indicates no API key is needed. However, it omits details about error behavior, data staleness, or how to interpret the output in the context of cross-chain routing, leaving some gaps for a complete picture.
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 has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description does not need to explain parameters, and since none exist, there is no possible confusion. It fully satisfies this dimension.
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 finds the cheapest EVM chain across 9 networks and returns savings percentage, which is specific. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tool get_cheapest_chain, which appears to serve a similar purpose, leaving potential ambiguity about when to choose one over the other.
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 provides a usage scenario: 'Use when you need the widest chain coverage to route a tx to the lowest-fee network.' This gives some guidance but does not mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, especially given the existence of get_cheapest_chain and other gas-related siblings. It could be more explicit about exclusions.
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.