MCP Etherscan Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'current' gas prices, implying real-time data, but doesn't specify data sources, update frequency, rate limits, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves operationally.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality ('Get current gas prices in Gwei') with no wasted words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 simple, zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate—it states what the tool returns. However, without annotations or output details, it lacks information on return format (e.g., numeric value, object structure), units beyond 'Gwei', or data freshness, leaving room for improvement in 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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't add parameter details, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose without redundancy. A baseline of 4 is applied for zero-parameter tools.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('current gas prices in Gwei'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling tools that might also retrieve gas prices with different parameters or scopes, preventing a perfect score.

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 versus alternatives like checking balances or getting transactions, nor does it mention any prerequisites or contextual constraints. It simply states what the tool does without usage context.

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