Retrieve the current Bitcoin mempool fee distribution to assess transaction fee levels and estimate confirmation times. Optionally override the network for the query.
Get the mempool fee distribution. Needs a backend.
Args: network: Override the server's network for this call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| network | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the note 'Needs a backend', which is useful context beyond annotations, but doesn't explain what happens if backend is unavailable or any other behavioral traits like rate limits.
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 description is concise with two short sections. It front-loads the main purpose and then describes the parameter, though the 'Needs a backend' note is placed somewhat awkwardly after the first sentence, but overall efficient.
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?
Given it has an output schema, return values are covered. But for a read-only tool with one optional parameter, it misses clarifying the network parameter's format and any backend requirements. It's adequate but not thorough.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the network parameter. It says 'Override the server's network for this call', which clarifies its purpose, but doesn't state valid values, defaults, or format, leaving significant ambiguity.
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 states it 'get the mempool fee distribution', which is a clear verb and resource. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like estimate_fee or get_recommended_fees which also deal with fees, so the purpose is clear but not distinguished.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like estimate_fee or get_recommended_fees. The only hint is the need for a backend, which is terse and not elaborated, so usage context is minimal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.