gas_price

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 states that the fee breakdown is conditional on chain support, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not discuss return format, latency, caching, or error handling, which are relevant for a live-fetch tool.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that conveys the core purpose immediately. No extraneous words.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description should hint at return structure. It mentions 'fee breakdown' but does not specify units (e.g., wei, gwei) or the shape of the breakdown. Considering the simplicity and zero parameters, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 no parameters and schema coverage is 100% (since there are none). The description adds no parameter information because none exist. Baseline 4 is appropriate as the description does not need to compensate for missing schema details.

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 returns the current gas price, with an optional EIP-1559 fee breakdown. It uses specific verbs ('Current', 'provides') and the resource is well-defined. The presence of siblings like 'estimate_gas' and 'arb_gas_prices' makes this tool distinct.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., 'estimate_gas' for estimated cost of a transaction, 'get_gas_price' if it existed). No mention of prerequisites, chain compatibility, or when to prefer other gas-related tools.

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