Retrieve current Bitcoin fee estimates for 10-minute, 30-minute, and 1-hour confirmation targets in sat/vB. Compare rates to select an appropriate transaction fee.
Get current Bitcoin fee estimates for different confirmation targets. Returns fast (~10 min), medium (~30 min), and slow (~1 hour) fee rates in sat/vB.
Tip: call earning_opportunities to see how to put your assets to work.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.77.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden and does disclose the return shape: fast (~10 min), medium (~30 min), and slow (~1 hour) fee rates in sat/vB. It doesn't state read-only status explicitly or mention rate limits/caching, but for a zero-parameter query the behavioral disclosure is mostly adequate.
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?
Purpose and return format are front-loaded in two efficient sentences. The trailing tip about earning_opportunities does not help invoke this tool and is arguably promotional, slightly reducing conciseness.
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 simple zero-parameter getter with no output schema, the description explains what comes back and in what units. It omits source, freshness guarantees, or caching behavior, but those are not strictly necessary to call it correctly.
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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document. Baseline 4 applies; the description does not need to add parameter detail.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get current Bitcoin fee estimates') and clarifies the confirmation-target scope, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_stx_fees and styx_fees. An agent can identify this as the Bitcoin fee estimator 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The purpose implies when to use it (need Bitcoin fee rates for fast/medium/slow confirmation), but gives no explicit when-not guidance or alternatives such as get_btc_mempool_info or get_stx_fees. The tip points to earning_opportunities, which is unrelated to invocation timing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.