boo-x402-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

EVM gas oracle

gas_oracle

Get current gas prices (slow/average/fast) on Ethereum, BNB Chain, or Base. Use to time transactions and estimate costs.

Instructions

Current gas prices (slow/average/fast) on an EVM chain. Use to time a transaction or estimate cost.

PAID TOOL: up to $0.005 USDC per call (x402 on Base). 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 observedv1.0.0Jul 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the paid nature ('up to $0.005 USDC per call') and payment method ('x402 on Base', 'paid automatically from your configured wallet'). This is critical for a paid tool. It also implies read-only behavior (current prices), which is transparent.

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 two short paragraphs, front-loaded with the core function in the first sentence, followed by usage hint and cost details. Every sentence provides value without redundancy.

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 has one optional parameter, no output schema, and a simple read-only function, the description sufficiently covers purpose, usage, and cost. However, it could mention that prices are in wei or gwei to be fully self-contained.

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?

The single parameter 'chain' is well-described in the schema ('Chain: eth, bnb, base (default eth)'), and the description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 it provides 'current gas prices (slow/average/fast) on an EVM chain' with a specific use case: 'time a transaction or estimate cost'. This is a specific verb+resource, and it distinguishes from sibling tools which cover TVL, yields, tokens, etc.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly says 'Use to time a transaction or estimate cost', giving clear context. However, it does not specify when not to use or provide alternative tools for similar purposes, which would strengthen guidance.

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