gas_historyAnalyze historical gas conditions across EVM chains: get base fee, median tip, and gas-used ratio stats over up to 1024 blocks with a downsampled series.
Base fee / median tip / gas-used ratio over the last N (≤1024) blocks with min/median/p75/max stats. Returns stats plus a downsampled series.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | Yes | EVM chain: ethereum, base, arbitrum, optimism, polygon, bsc, avalanche | |
| blocks | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the return shape (stats plus a downsampled series) and the metric set, but discloses nothing about rate limits, pagination, or freshness beyond the block window.
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?
Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the metric list and ending with the return format. No filler; every clause carries information. Slightly terse, but appropriate.
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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description conveys the metrics, the block window, and the return shape, and annotations cover safety. Only the routing against gas_prices is missing for full completeness.
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 50%: chain is documented via its enum, but blocks carries no description in the schema. The description's 'last N (≤1024) blocks' clarifies the blocks parameter's meaning and bound, adding some value, though it largely restates the schema's maximum.
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 names the specific metrics (base fee, median tip, gas-used ratio) and the time window (last N blocks), so the resource and verb are clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling gas_prices, but the historical framing is evident.
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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The obvious alternative, gas_prices (current prices vs. this historical series), is never mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the choice from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.