AgentFeed

Solana priority fees

get_priority_fees

Read-onlyIdempotent

Solana priority fees right now: the fee estimate at every level from min to unsafeMax in micro-lamports per compute unit, with a recommended tip. For bots that need their transactions to land. Costs 0.005 USDC per call (x402, USDC on Solana or Base).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes	the get_priority_fees payload; a real captured example is free at https://x402.ochinimus.app/api/sample/get_priority_fees
`tool`	Yes	the tool that produced this payload

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 25, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "additionalProperties": {},
+      "description": "the get_priority_fees payload; a real captured example is free at https://x402.ochinimus.app/api/sample/get_priority_fees",
+      "propertyNames": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "tool": {
+      "const": "get_priority_fees",
+      "description": "the tool that produced this payload",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "tool",
+    "data"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the real-time nature ('right now'), the specific fee levels returned, and the cost of 0.005 USDC per call via x402. This is meaningful behavioral and operational transparency.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the core output, the intended use case, and the cost. The most important information is front-loaded, and there is no fluff or repetition of schema/annotation data.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns, why to use it, and what it costs. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics because none are needed; it correctly focuses on the output and usage context.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the resource (Solana priority fees) and what the tool provides: a fee estimate at every level from min to unsafeMax in micro-lamports per compute unit, plus a recommended tip. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling get_jito_tips, which likely covers a related but distinct concept, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The phrase 'For bots that need their transactions to land' gives a clear use case and implies this is for transaction inclusion. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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

All AgentFeed tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.