Skip to main content
Glama
alexandresanlim

Mempool MCP Server

get-recommended-fees

Retrieve optimal Bitcoin transaction fees based on current network conditions to ensure timely confirmations.

Instructions

Get recommended fees for Bitcoin

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • Registers the 'get-recommended-fees' tool with the MCP server, including name, description, and an inline async handler that fetches and returns formatted fees as text content.
    private registerGetRecommendedFeesHandler(): void {
      this.server.tool(
        "get-recommended-fees",
        "Get recommended fees for Bitcoin",
        async () => {
          const recommendedText = await this.feesService.getRecommended();
    
          return {
            content: [
              {
                type: "text",
                text: recommendedText,
              },
            ],
          };
        }
      );
    }
  • TypeScript interface defining the response structure for recommended Bitcoin fees data.
    export interface IFeesRecommendedResponse {
      fastestFee: number;
      halfHourFee: number;
      hourFee: number;
      economyFee: number;
      minimumFee: number;
    }
  • Service method that retrieves raw recommended fees data via request service and formats it into a human-readable string.
    async getRecommended(): Promise<string> {
      const feesRecommendedData = await this.requestService.getFeesRecommended();
      return formatResponse<IFeesRecommendedResponse>(
        "Bitcoin Fees Recommended",
        feesRecommendedData
      );
    }
  • Infrastructure method that makes an API request to the 'fees/recommended' endpoint to fetch the fees data.
    async getFeesRecommended(): Promise<IFeesRecommendedResponse | null> {
      return this.client.makeRequest<IFeesRecommendedResponse>(
        "fees/recommended"
      );
    }
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe how it works—whether it returns current network fees, fee estimates for different confirmation times, historical averages, or other fee-related data. No information about rate limits, authentication needs, or response format is included.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core purpose immediately.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's apparent simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'recommended fees' means in practice, what format the output takes, or how this differs from other fee-related tools in the sibling list. For a tool that likely returns structured fee data, more context would be helpful.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps, and it appropriately doesn't mention parameters since none exist. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.

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 states the action ('Get recommended fees') and the resource ('for Bitcoin'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-mining-blocks-fees-24h' or explain what makes these fees 'recommended' versus other fee-related tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get-mining-blocks-fees-24h' that might provide similar fee information, there's no indication of when this tool is preferred or what context it serves.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/alexandresanlim/mempool-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server