get_gas_price

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it adds no behavioral context beyond the tool's name. It does not disclose units, data source, error behavior, or whether this is a read-only operation, leaving the agent to infer those details from the word 'Get' alone.

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 compact sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is appropriately sized for such a simple tool and is easy to parse quickly.

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 simplicity of the tool and the rich schema parameter description, the description is minimally adequate. However, the absence of an output schema and the close sibling tools like get_gas_prices_all_chains create ambiguity that the description doesn't resolve, such as the exact response format or how it differs from the all-chains variant.

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%, and the parameter description in the schema already explains acceptable values (network names, chain IDs), examples, and the default. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema handles it sufficiently, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 resource (current gas price for a network), making the core purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_gas_prices_all_chains or per-chain gas tools such as near_get_gas_price and sui_get_gas_price, which also retrieve gas price information.

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 guidance is provided on when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_gas_prices_all_chains, get_gas_oracle, or get_gas_history. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or situations where other tools would be more appropriate.

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