fee_estimatesRecommended sat/vB by confirmation target.
This call uses example arguments supplied in the tool’s input schema.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"network": "mainnet"
},
"name": "fee_estimates"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| network | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "network": "mainnet"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "description": "Fee estimates by confirmation target (sat/vB)",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description says 'by confirmation target' but the input schema has no 'target' parameter, only an optional 'network' string. This mismatch is confusing. Annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent) are present but the description fails to clarify what the 'network' parameter does or how targets are specified.
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 very concise (six words) but lacks essential details about inputs and behavior. It is front-loaded but incomplete, making it adequate but not helpful.
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 the single optional parameter and 0% schema coverage, the description should provide more context about the 'network' parameter and how to interpret the output. The output schema exists but is not described. The description is incomplete for effective tool invocation.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the 'network' parameter at all. It mentions 'confirmation target' but that is not a parameter. No additional meaning is provided beyond the 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 tool provides recommended sat/vB fees by confirmation target, which is a specific and distinct resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'tip_height' (current block fee) and 'mempool' (mempool state).
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?
Usage is implied from the name and description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'mempool' for dynamic fee estimates). No when-not-to-use conditions are mentioned.
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.