get_gas_prices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool provides 'real-time' data and mentions pricing ('Price: $0.10') and a promotional offer ('FIRST CALL FREE'), which are useful behavioral traits. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, data freshness, or authentication requirements.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, args, returns, price) and uses bullet-like formatting. It's appropriately sized, though the promotional pricing note could be considered slightly extraneous. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words.

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 tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, real-time data query), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the parameter semantics thoroughly, and since an output schema exists, it doesn't need to detail return values. However, it could better address behavioral aspects like rate limits or data sources for a fully complete picture.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully documents the single parameter 'chains' by listing all options (ethereum, base, polygon, bsc, arbitrum, optimism) and specifying the default behavior ('Defaults to all supported chains'), adding clear meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('real-time gas prices across multiple blockchain networks'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_token_price or get_multi_chain_balance by focusing specifically on gas prices rather than token prices, balances, or other metrics.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it's clear what the tool does, there's no mention of when it's appropriate (e.g., before submitting transactions) or when other tools might be better suited (e.g., get_batch_quote for quotes, build_transaction for transaction building).

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