What priority fee will actually land your transaction right now. Returns p50/p75/p90/p99 microlamports from the last 150 slots, the trend, and three recommended tiers (relaxed / normal / urgent) with the SOL cost of each. Use before every transaction you need to land. $0.02 per call in USDC on Solana.
accounts: optional list of writable account pubkeys; omit for a global sample
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| accounts | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the $0.02 per call cost, the time window (last 150 slots), and the output structure (trend and recommended tiers). It does not discuss authentication, payment mechanics, or error behavior, which would improve it further.
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 concise, starting with a clear statement of what it does, then listing concrete outputs, usage timing, pricing, and parameter guidance. Every sentence adds distinct value without redundancy, making it well-structured and front-loaded.
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?
For a tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main inputs, outputs, and cost. It lacks details about payment flow, rate limits, or error scenarios, but these are not critical for basic invocation. It is complete enough for most use cases.
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?
The schema only provides the type for 'accounts' with no description. The tool description adds meaningful semantics: 'optional list of writable account pubkeys; omit for a global sample.' This clarifies the parameter's purpose and usage beyond the raw 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 specifies that the tool returns priority fee percentiles (p50/p75/p90/p99) and three recommended tiers with SOL costs, which is a clear purpose. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like simulate_transaction, so it misses the top score.
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?
It gives an explicit when-to-use instruction: 'Use before every transaction you need to land.' It also explains the difference between providing accounts versus omitting them for a global sample. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use this tool.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: health checks RPC connectivity, inspect_wallet profiles a wallet, payment_info explains payment steps, priority_fee estimates fees, request_capability captures unmet demand, screen_token assesses token risk, service_info provides service details, and simulate_transaction tests transactions. No two tools overlap in function.
All tool names use lowercase with underscores, but they mix verb_noun (inspect_wallet, simulate_transaction), noun_info (payment_info, service_info), and single-word (health) patterns. The inconsistency is minor and does not impede readability or selection.
Eight tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range for a focused Solana utility server. Each tool adds unique value with no redundancy, making the set feel compact yet complete.
The set covers the core read-only Solana operations: connectivity, wallet inspection, token risk, fee estimation, and transaction simulation, plus meta tools for payment and capability requests. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no transaction status checker), but for its stated purpose as an analysis and diagnostics server, coverage is strong.