get_eth_gas_current

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It states 'FREE — no wallet needed', which implies read-only, public access with no side effects. It also details the data returned (base fee, priority tiers, congestion). While it doesn't mention rate limits or response format, the tool is simple and zero-parameter, making this 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 succinct sentences. The first front-loads the core purpose and output contents; the second adds a differentiator ('FREE — no wallet needed'). There is no wasted verbiage.

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 zero-input, no-output-schema read tool, the description is fully complete. It tells the agent exactly what data will be returned and the access requirements. No gaps in context are present for the expected use case.

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, so the description doesn't need to explain parameter syntax. Per the baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description adds no param-specific info, but none is needed.

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 returning current Ethereum gas in gwei, enumerating specific components (next-block base fee, priority-fee tiers, congestion). The word 'Current' distinguishes it from forecast-related siblings like get_eth_gas_forecast.

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 establishes clear context: this tool is for current gas data, as implied by 'Current'. It also notes 'FREE — no wallet needed', indicating no auth prerequisites. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives for forecast or timing, relying on the name for differentiation.

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