get_gas_basic

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

Discloses cost ($0.001 USDC via x402 on Base), which is a critical behavioral trait. Without annotations, the description carries full burden; it provides this transparency but does not mention rate limits, side effects, or error behavior. Generally sufficient for a simple read-oriented 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?

Extremely concise: two sentences cover purpose, included chains, and cost. No redundant information. Every sentence adds value, and the key action is front-loaded. For such a simple tool, this is ideal.

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?

Describes purpose, chains, and cost completely given no parameters and no output schema. However, it lacks details on output format (e.g., JSON vs text) and how savings calculation works. For a basic tool, this is mostly sufficient but could be slightly more explicit.

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?

No parameters are defined, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Description adds context about the tool's function but cannot add parameter-level semantics. With 0 parameters, baseline is 4, and the description appropriately describes the overall behavior without needing to compensate for parameter 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?

Clearly states the tool retrieves a 4-chain EVM gas comparison with cheapest chain recommendation and savings calculation. Lists specific chains (Ethereum, Base, Arbitrum, Optimism) and cost, making purpose unambiguous. The verb 'Get' and resource 'gas comparison' are specific and distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_cheapest_chain' which likely only returns one chain.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. While names imply differentiation ('basic' vs 'demo'/'cheapest_chain'/'premium'), the description does not state usage context or exclusions. It implicitly suggests this is the standard comparison tool but lacks explicit alternatives guidance.

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