crypto.gas-oracle

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 transparently describes the data source (priority-fee percentiles over trailing 4 blocks) and the computed outputs (tiers and cost estimate). It does not mention rate limits or side effects, but for a read-only oracle this is sufficient.

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 two concise sentences: the first explains purpose and output, the second lists chains. No unnecessary words, and it is front-loaded with essential information. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is complete. It covers methodology, return values, and supported chains. There are no missing critical details for an agent to use it correctly.

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?

Only one parameter 'chain' exists with schema coverage 0%, but the description adds meaning by listing the supported chain values (base, ethereum, polygon, arbitrum, optimism) and states the default. This compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 it is a live EVM gas oracle, specifies the output (slow/standard/fast tiers and transfer cost estimate), and lists supported chains. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like crypto.token-price or crypto.address-validate.

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 implies usage for obtaining current gas prices but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The context is clear but lacks direct usage instructions.

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