Skip to main content
Glama
dewanshparashar

Arbitrum MCP Server

gas_status

Monitor current gas prices on Arbitrum chains to identify spikes, understand transaction costs, and track network congestion for project management and support teams.

Instructions

Monitor current gas prices on the chain. Essential for identifying gas price spikes and understanding transaction costs. Useful for PM and support teams to monitor network congestion.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rpcUrlNoThe RPC URL of the Arbitrum chain (optional if default is set)
chainNameNoChain name (e.g., 'Xai', 'Arbitrum One') - will auto-resolve to RPC URL

Implementation Reference

  • Core handler function in ArbitrumChainClient that fetches current gas price using viem's publicClient.getGasPrice(), converts to gwei, and returns formatted GasStatus object.
    async getGasStatus(): Promise<GasStatus> {
      try {
        const gasPrice = await this.publicClient.getGasPrice();
        const gasPriceGwei = (Number(gasPrice) / 1e9).toFixed(2);
        
        const summary = `Current gas price: ${gasPriceGwei} gwei (${gasPrice.toString()} wei)`;
    
        return {
          currentGasPrice: gasPrice.toString(),
          currentGasPriceGwei: gasPriceGwei,
          summary
        };
      } catch (error) {
        return {
          currentGasPrice: "0",
          currentGasPriceGwei: "0",
          summary: `Error checking gas price: ${error instanceof Error ? error.message : 'Unknown error'}`
        };
      }
    }
  • src/index.ts:759-773 (registration)
    MCP server handler registration for 'gas_status' tool: resolves RPC URL, instantiates ArbitrumChainClient, calls getGasStatus(), and returns JSON response.
    case "gas_status": {
      const rpcUrl = await this.resolveRpcUrl(
        (args.rpcUrl as string) || (args.chainName as string)
      );
      const chainDataClient = new ArbitrumChainClient(rpcUrl);
      const status = await chainDataClient.getGasStatus();
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: "text",
            text: JSON.stringify(status, null, 2),
          },
        ],
      };
    }
  • Tool schema definition for 'gas_status' in getAvailableTools(): defines name, description, and inputSchema (optional rpcUrl or chainName).
      name: "gas_status",
      description:
        "Monitor current gas prices on the chain. Essential for identifying gas price spikes and understanding transaction costs. Useful for PM and support teams to monitor network congestion.",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object" as const,
        properties: {
          rpcUrl: {
            type: "string",
            description:
              "The RPC URL of the Arbitrum chain (optional if default is set)",
          },
          chainName: {
            type: "string",
            description:
              "Chain name (e.g., 'Xai', 'Arbitrum One') - will auto-resolve to RPC URL",
          },
        },
        required: [],
      },
    },
  • TypeScript interface defining the output structure for GasStatus returned by getGasStatus().
    export interface GasStatus {
      currentGasPrice: string; // in wei
      currentGasPriceGwei: string; // in gwei for readability
      summary: string;
    }
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool's function (monitoring gas prices) and target users (PM and support teams), but lacks critical behavioral details such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output format looks like (especially problematic since there's no output schema). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately sized with three sentences that each serve a purpose: stating the core function, explaining its importance for identifying spikes, and identifying target user groups. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids unnecessary repetition or fluff. However, the third sentence about user groups could be considered slightly extraneous for pure tool functionality.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (monitoring tool with network implications), lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information is returned (e.g., current gas price, historical data, congestion metrics), how results are formatted, or any behavioral constraints. For a tool that presumably provides critical network data, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to properly use and interpret results.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already fully documents both parameters (rpcUrl and chainName) with descriptions. The tool description doesn't add any additional meaning or context about these parameters beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no parameter info in the description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose as monitoring current gas prices on the chain, identifying gas price spikes, and understanding transaction costs. It uses specific verbs ('monitor', 'identifying', 'understanding') and identifies the resource ('gas prices on the chain'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools that might also provide gas-related information or network status.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage context by stating it's 'essential for identifying gas price spikes' and 'useful for PM and support teams to monitor network congestion,' which suggests when this tool might be appropriate. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other sibling tools like 'chain_info' or 'comprehensive_chain_status'), nor does it specify exclusions or prerequisites.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/dewanshparashar/arbitrum-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server