info_get_tx_fee
Get the current transaction fees for the network, returned in both nAVAX and AVAX.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| network | No | The Avalanche network to query (default: mainnet) |
Avalanche AVAX MCP
TDQS
A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5
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 the return format (nAVAX/AVAX) but does not mention the optional network parameter's default behavior or any other behavioral details (e.g., read-only nature, error conditions). A basic read query with limited behavioral complexity, so a mid score is appropriate.
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 a single, focused sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose and output format, with no unnecessary words.
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?
This is a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description covers what the tool returns and the schema documents the parameter, making the context sufficiently complete. A minor gap is not stating the default network explicitly in the description, but the schema covers 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single 'network' parameter, including an enum and default. The description adds no additional parameter details, so the baseline 3 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 clearly states the tool's function: fetching current transaction fees for the network, with the return format specified in both nAVAX and AVAX. This distinguishes it from sibling info_get_* tools that query other network information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool or mention alternatives, but the purpose implies usage for querying transaction fees. No exclusions or alternative tools are referenced, so guidance is merely implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation2/5
Many tools are redundant due to compatibility aliases (avalanche_docs_* vs docs_*, blockchain_get_* vs onchain_lookup) and overlapping functionality (chain_stats vs onchain_query, onchain_activity vs onchain_query ops, acp_list vs info_acps). Agents may struggle to select the correct tool when multiple appear to serve the same purpose, despite descriptions clarifying aliases.
Naming Consistency2/5
Naming patterns are inconsistent: some tools use noun_verb (acp_list, docs_fetch), some use verb_noun (build_plan), and others use prefixes like platform_get_, info_get_, and onchain_. The mix of styles (snake_case, noun phrases, verb phrases) makes it hard to predict tool names.
Tool Count2/5
With 48 tools, the count is high and inflated by compatibility aliases and granular platform_get_* wrappers. The scope spans multiple domains (docs, on-chain, platform API, ACPs, console), which could be better modularized. Many tools are trivial variants (e.g., platform_get_block vs platform_get_block_by_height) adding unnecessary bulk.
Completeness4/5
The server provides thorough read-only coverage for Avalanche: docs search, ACP management, on-chain lookups, indexed stats, platform API getters, and console flow guidance. While there is no transaction submission (likely intentional), the surface covers most queries a developer would need, with minor gaps like detailed token transfer history.