boo-mpp-mcp

EVM gas oracle

gas_oracle

Get current gas prices (slow, average, fast) for Ethereum, BNB Chain, or Base. Pay per call via MPP/Tempo rail; specify chain to fetch live fees.

Instructions

Current gas prices (slow/average/fast) on an EVM chain.

PAID TOOL: up to $0.005 USDC.e per call (MPP on Tempo). Paid automatically from your configured wallet.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "gas_oracle"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chain`	No	Chain: eth, bnb, base (default eth).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Aug 6, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the paid nature ('PAID TOOL: up to $0.005 USDC.e per call', 'Paid automatically') and confirms the tool is read-only in effect. It does not mention rate limits or response format, but the cost disclosure adds significant transparency beyond the bare function.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is extremely concise, with two short sentences: the first states the core function, the second adds the essential payment warning. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place without redundant or fluffy content.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is largely complete: it states what the tool returns, the chain options, and the cost. It does not specify the units of gas prices (e.g., gwei) or detail the exact response structure, but those are minor gaps for this simple oracle tool.

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 coverage is 100% for the single optional parameter 'chain', and the schema already describes the allowed values (eth, bnb, base) and default (eth). The description adds no extra semantic value about the parameter, so it matches the baseline expected when the schema fully documents parameters.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool returns current gas prices (slow/average/fast) on an EVM chain, using a specific verb ('gas prices') and a defined resource scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which cover different domains like yields, TVL, or token prices.

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 the tool is used for fetching gas prices on supported EVM chains (eth, bnb, base), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or exclude any use cases. It offers minimal context about chain selection through the parameter description, but lacks explicit guidelines.

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