Skip to main content
Glama
traivo-mcp
by traivoxyz

Ethereum status

get_chain_status
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check Ethereum mainnet’s head block, gas price in gwei, and RPC latency to timestamp other reads and estimate gas for position sizing.

Instructions

Ethereum mainnet (chain id 1) head block, gas price (gwei) and RPC latency as seen by Traivo. Useful to timestamp other reads and to estimate gas for size_position.

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": "get_chain_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description then adds genuinely new behavioral context: the values are a point-in-time view 'as seen by Traivo', scoped to chain id 1, with gas denominated in gwei. It does not discuss freshness/staleness policy or exact return field names, which keeps it at a 4.

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?

Two sentences, no filler: the first delivers the return payload and scope up front, the second delivers the use cases. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description bears the burden of describing returns, and it does list the three data points and the gas unit. It omits the actual response field names and the latency unit, which leaves a small gap for a status tool an agent may want to parse programmatically.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond confirming the implicit chain-id scope, which it does by naming chain id 1. Baseline for a no-parameter tool applies.

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 names a specific resource and scope — 'Ethereum mainnet (chain id 1)' — and enumerates exactly what is returned: head block, gas price in gwei, and RPC latency. That verb/resource granularity, plus the chain-id disambiguation, clearly separates it from siblings like get_crypto_markets or get_onchain_tokens.

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?

It gives two concrete use cases — timestamping other reads and estimating gas for size_position — which tells the agent when to reach for it and links it to a named sibling. It stops short of stating when not to use it or naming a competing alternative, so it falls just short of a 5.

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