Recommends a Solana 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses cost ($0.002 per call via x402) and output granularity (confidence levels), but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, idempotent, or free of side effects. The behavioral traits beyond cost and confidence levels are partially covered.
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, no wasted words. First sentence delivers purpose and output characteristics; second sentence adds cost. Front-loaded and efficient.
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?
Given no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, data source, confidence levels, and cost. However, it lacks explanation of the return format or units (e.g., lamports, SOL). Agents might need to infer the expected output structure. Still mostly complete for a simple recommendation tool.
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 0 parameters with 100% schema coverage (trivial). The description adds meaning by specifying that the tool provides fee recommendations at low/medium/high confidence levels, which informs the agent about the output variety. Since there are no parameters, every piece of description adds value beyond the empty 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 states the verb 'Recommends' and the resource 'Solana transaction priority fee', with context of 'based on recent network activity' and 'at low/medium/high confidence levels'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools for other chains (Base, Ethereum) and network health tools.
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 implies usage for obtaining a Solana priority fee recommendation but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool vs the Base or Ethereum siblings, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives.
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.