rpc_healthProbe free public RPC endpoints for a selected EVM chain to measure latency, detect block lag, verify chain ID, and get a nightly server-side snapshot.
Probe free public RPC endpoints for a chain now (latency, block lag, chain-ID check) and include the nightly server-side snapshot.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | Yes | EVM chain: ethereum, base, arbitrum, optimism, polygon, bsc, avalanche |
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, so the safe-read, external-network profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context by disclosing that results combine a live probe with a cached nightly snapshot, which tells the agent data may be mixed-freshness. It stops short of stating rate limits, probe timeouts, or how unreachable endpoints are reported.
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?
One sentence, verb first, with the measured dimensions parenthesized and the snapshot caveat trailing. Every clause carries information and there is no padding.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what comes back (latency, block lag, chain-ID check, snapshot), which compensates for the missing return contract. For a one-parameter read tool with annotations already covering safety and openness, this is nearly sufficient; only failure/rate-limit behavior is unaddressed.
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 is a single required 'chain' parameter with 100% schema description coverage and a closed enum, so the schema fully documents it. The description only echoes this via 'for a chain' and adds no per-chain quirks or defaults. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.
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 a specific verb and resource — 'Probe free public RPC endpoints for a chain' — and enumerates what is measured (latency, block lag, chain-ID check) plus the snapshot. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from any sibling, but no sibling covers RPC probing, so the practical risk of confusion is low.
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?
Usage is only implied: 'now' versus the 'nightly server-side snapshot' hints at the live-check use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no alternative tool is named. An agent can infer intent but gets no routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.