Fee History: Last N blocks base fee + priority fee. 🆓 5 free trial calls per signed wallet
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": "x402-fee-history"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| n | No | ||
| chain | No | ||
| blocks | No | ||
| network | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / blocks / descriptionRemoved value: -"Blocks to process"Input schema / properties / chain / descriptionRemoved value: -"Chain to process"Input schema / properties / n / descriptionRemoved value: -"N to process"Input schema / properties / network / descriptionRemoved value: -"Network to process"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the trial quota tied to a signed wallet, which hints at auth/payment behavior, but says nothing about rate limits, what the history payload looks like, or whether an unsigned caller can invoke it.
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?
It is a single front-loaded line with no filler; the output scope comes first and the trial note second. It earns its length, though the emoji/quota sentence is arguably peripheral to invocation.
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?
For a four-parameter tool with zero annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is too thin: it never explains chain vs network, expected return shape, or access requirements. An agent would need to guess at several inputs before calling it.
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 coverage is 0% across four parameters (n, chain, blocks, network). The phrase 'Last N blocks' loosely maps to n/blocks, but the distinction between chain and network is left entirely unexplained, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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 names the resource (fee history) and specifies the returned quantities (base fee + priority fee over the last N blocks), which lets an agent distinguish it from generic siblings like x402-gas-price or x402-block-fee. However, it lacks an explicit verb and doesn't call out the specific sibling alternatives, so it falls 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many neighboring fee/gas tools (x402-fee-estimate, x402-gas-now, x402-block-fee). The only extra sentence concerns the free-trial quota, which is pricing information rather than usage context.
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.