Recommends a Ethereum mainnet transaction priority fee based on recent network activity, at low/medium/high confidence levels. Paid: $0.002 per call via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool is paid ($0.002 per call via x402), which is critical for an agent to know before invocation. It also explains it's based on recent network activity and outputs confidence levels. No contradictions with annotations (none provided), and no behavior like mutations or auth needs are relevant for a read-only recommendation tool.
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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose, then adds essential cost information. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.
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?
The tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no complex behaviors. The description is sufficient for an agent to understand the input (none) and output (priority fee at confidence levels). However, it could be slightly more complete by hinting at what the output format might be (e.g., a number in gwei) or noting that the fee is for EIP-1559 transactions, but not required given the tool's simplicity.
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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage, so the schema is trivial. The description adds significant value by explaining what the tool does without needing parameters—no parameter documentation is needed. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, but the description's mention of confidence levels enhances usefulness, earning a 5.
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 states the tool recommends an Ethereum mainnet priority fee based on recent network activity, with specific verb 'recommends' and precise resource 'Ethereum mainnet transaction priority fee'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_recommended_priority_fee_base' and 'get_recommended_priority_fee_solana' by specifying the network (Ethereum) and adds detail about confidence levels (low/medium/high).
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?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool (for Ethereum mainnet transactions needing a priority fee recommendation) and mentions no parameters, implying immediate usability. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives like the Base or Solana versions, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names.
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 is clearly distinguished by its operation type (network health, priority fee, store, retrieve) and, where applicable, the specific blockchain (Base, Ethereum, Solana). No two tools perform the same function on the same target, so an agent can select the correct tool without ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case. The first six tools use 'get_' plus a descriptive noun (network_health or recommended_priority_fee) followed by the chain name, while the storage tools use 'store_' and 'retrieve_' with 'object'. This predictable convention aids agent selection.
With 8 tools, the server is well-scoped. The six network-related tools cover three blockchains across two recurring operations, and the two storage tools provide minimal yet sufficient coverage. The count is within the ideal range and each tool earns its place.
The network health and fee recommendation tools fully cover their immediate purposes. For object storage, only store and retrieve are provided, lacking delete or list operations. While the core workflow (write and read) is functional, the absence of delete is a minor gap that could require workarounds.