Retrieve current STX fee estimates for low, medium, and high priority tiers based on mempool analysis to select appropriate transaction fees.
Get current STX fee estimates for different priority levels. Returns low, medium, and high fee tiers in micro-STX, based on mempool analysis.
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 exist, so the description must carry the behavior burden, and it does reasonably well: it discloses that three tiers are returned, that values are in micro-STX, and that estimates derive from mempool analysis. It omits any note on freshness/refresh cadence or whether the call is cached, which keeps it short of a 5.
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 core two sentences are front-loaded and waste-free, covering purpose, tiers, units, and data source. The appended 'Tip: call earning_opportunities...' is promotional filler that doesn't help an agent invoke this tool correctly, so it's not a perfect score.
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 zero-param, read-only fee lookup with no output schema, the description supplies enough: what is returned (low/medium/high), the unit (micro-STX), and the basis (mempool). An explicit note that it is a read-only/side-effect-free call would make it complete, but nothing essential is missing.
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?
Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain inputs and correctly focuses on outputs instead.
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 STX fee estimates'), names the priority tiers, and specifies the return units (micro-STX). An agent can distinguish it from get_btc_fees purely from the 'STX' scoping without opening any 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?
Implies usage by saying it returns low/medium/high tiers based on mempool analysis, which signals fee-selection use. But it never says when not to use it or names the obvious alternative (get_btc_fees) for BTC fee estimation. The trailing tip about earning_opportunities is a cross-sell, not routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.