EVM MCP Server

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and scope. The description adds useful context by specifying the exact gas price types returned (base fee, standard, fast), which isn't in annotations. No contradictions with annotations exist.

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 purpose with no wasted words. Every element (verb, resource, data specifics, target) earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 the tool's low complexity (1 optional parameter), rich annotations covering safety and scope, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It specifies the gas price types returned, but could benefit from mentioning default behavior (e.g., network defaults to Ethereum mainnet, as noted in schema) or response format.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'network' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without extra value.

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', specifying the exact data returned (base fee, standard, and fast) and the target (for a network). It distinguishes from siblings like get_block or get_chain_info by focusing specifically on gas price metrics.

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 implies usage when gas prices are needed for a network, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., no mention of sibling tools like get_chain_info that might include gas data). It lacks when-not-to-use scenarios or prerequisites.

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