ScorpTech x402 Tools

Sol Priority Fees

sol_priority_fees

Read-onlyIdempotent

Solana priority-fee estimator from getRecentPrioritizationFees (last ~150 slots), globally or for the accounts your transaction writes to: min / p25 / median / p75 / p90 / p95 / max in micro-lamports per compute unit (all slots and non-zero slots), suggested low / medium / high / very-high compute-unit prices, and the resulting fee in lamports and SOL for your compute-unit limit and signature count. Public Solana RPC, read-only. Price: $0.003 USDC per successful call (x402, Solana). Same tool over HTTPS: GET https://scorptech.it.com/api/x402/v1/sol-priority-fees

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": "sol_priority_fees"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`accounts`	No	Writable accounts of your transaction (base58), up to 64; empty = global fees
`signatures`	No	Signatures in the transaction (5000 lamports base fee each)
`computeUnits`	No	Compute-unit limit used for the cost estimate

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the RPC method and lookback window, output metrics, public RPC nature, x402 payment model, and price per successful call.

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 dense but front-loaded: it opens with the tool's purpose and data source, then enumerates the return metrics that matter because there is no output schema. The pricing and alternate endpoint sentence is also useful rather than filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a read-only estimator with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description supplies the data source, scope controls, output metrics, units, cost model, and alternate HTTPS endpoint. An agent has enough information to decide when and how to call it.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the input schema, including defaults and limits. The description reinforces that accounts affect scope and that compute-unit limit and signature count drive the fee estimate, but adds no syntax or edge-case detail beyond the schema.

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 states a highly specific resource and operation: a Solana priority-fee estimator sourced from getRecentPrioritizationFees over the last ~150 slots. It scopes the tool to global fees or fees for writable accounts, and enumerates the exact outputs, making it easy to distinguish from balance, transaction, or validator tools.

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 clear usage context: use it globally or for the accounts your transaction writes to, and it notes that it is a public read-only Solana RPC tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a full when/when-not routing statement.

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

All ScorpTech x402 Tools tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?