solana_priority_feesGet timestamped network-wide or account-localized priority-fee quantiles before choosing a compute-unit price. Suitable for recurring bot polling. Costs $0.002.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| accounts | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark as read-only, idempotent, and open-world. Description adds valuable context: it is timestamped, costs $0.002 per call, and suitable for polling. No contradictions.
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?
Two sentences, each earning its place. First sentence delivers core purpose and scope. Second adds cost and suitability. No fluff.
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?
No output schema, but description mentions 'priority-fee quantiles' and 'timestamped', giving a reasonable sense of return type. Cost and usage guidance included. Could be slightly more explicit about output format.
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 has 0% description coverage. Description implies 'accounts' parameter is for account-localized fees but does not explain syntax, default behavior (omission yields network-wide), or constraints beyond maxItems. Partial compensation.
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?
Clearly states it retrieves 'priority-fee quantiles' with network-wide or account-localized scope. Verb 'Get' and resource are specific. Distinguishes from sibling Solana tools which focus on token/transaction analysis.
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?
Explicitly says 'Suitable for recurring bot polling' and 'before choosing a compute-unit price', providing clear context for when to use. No explicit when-not or alternatives, but sufficient for the use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The Solana tools are distinct among themselves, but the inclusion of normalize_audio and pdf_to_markdown creates domain confusion. An agent cannot easily determine when to use these media tools in a server named after Solana transaction evidence.
Naming conventions are mixed: normalize_audio uses verb_noun, pdf_to_markdown uses a different pattern, and Solana tools use a prefix but mix noun and verb forms. No consistent verb_noun pattern across the set.
With 6 tools, the count is reasonable for a server, but the scope is mismatched—two tools are unrelated to Solana transactions, making the set feel poorly scoped for the server's stated purpose.
The Solana tools cover priority fees, token analysis, transaction analysis, and simulation, which are useful for transaction evidence, but missing operations like transaction broadcast or account details. The unrelated audio and PDF tools add noise rather than completeness.