SiteCheck Agent Intel & Dev

Current base fee and priority-fee percentiles for Ethereum

agent_intel_crosschain_gas_priority_fee

Read-only

Current base fee and priority-fee percentiles (10th, 50th, 99th) for Ethereum, Base or Arbitrum from public RPC nodes, with the next block's base fee projected from the last block's fullness (EIP-1559 rule). Solana is not included here. Forecasts are a one-block projection, not a congestion model. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "agent_intel_crosschain_gas_priority_fee"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chain`	No	ethereum, base or arbitrum (default ethereum)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chain`	No
`source`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`baseFeeGwei`	No
`nextBaseFeeGwei`	No
`priorityFeeGwei`	No
`lastBlockGasUsedRatio`	No
`averagePriorityFeeGweiLast5Blocks`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context the annotations cannot: forecasts are a one-block EIP-1559 projection rather than a congestion model, and it discloses pricing ($0.002 USDC via x402) with the important detail that failed calls are not charged. Return shape is covered by the output schema, so remaining gaps are minor.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four sentences, each carrying distinct information: scope, exclusion, forecast caveat, and price. Front-loaded with the core capability. Slight redundancy in repeating the chain list already given in the schema, but no padding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it returns, which chains, the projection limitation, the Solana exclusion, and the payment model including the failed-call exemption.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'chain' parameter already documents allowed values and its default. The description restates the three chains but adds no syntax, casing, or fallback nuance beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific resource (base fee and priority-fee percentiles at 10th/50th/99th), the supported chains (Ethereum, Base, Arbitrum), and the data source (public RPC nodes). It also explicitly excludes Solana, which no sibling name implies, so an agent can distinguish this from gas-adjacent or Solana tools without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It clearly states the applicable chains and explicitly rules out Solana, which is a real exclusion. It lacks an explicit 'use this instead of X' pointer to a sibling, but the scope statement is strong enough to route an agent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All SiteCheck Agent Intel & Dev tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?