crypto_gas

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

No annotations provided, so the description fully discloses behavioral traits: cost per call ($0.002 USDC), caching up to 15 seconds, direct JSON-RPC node reads with automatic fallbacks, and details of returned data (base fee, percentile priority fees). This is comprehensive for a read-only 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 well-structured and front-loaded with purpose and cost. Each sentence provides valuable information, though it could be slightly more concise by combining some points. Still efficient.

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 no output schema, the description sufficiently describes the return values (gas price, base fee, percentile priority fees in gwei) and operational details (caching, fallbacks). The single parameter is well-covered. The tool is complete for an agent to use 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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with the enum values and description 'Chain to query.' The description reinforces the valid chains and adds context (EVM chain, three options), but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'current gas prices and EIP-1559 fee estimates for an EVM chain', and specifies the supported chains (Ethereum, Base, Polygon). It is distinct from sibling tools like crypto_price and defi_tvl.

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?

Explicitly states use cases: 'Use for transaction cost estimation, fee optimization, and timing on-chain actions.' Also provides context on data source and caching, but does not mention alternatives or when not to use.

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