Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
RouteMesh MCP Server

RouteMesh MCP Server

Official
by routemesh
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Get fee data

rpc_get_fee_data

Fetch current gas price, max priority fee, and recent one-block fee history for an EVM chain to estimate transaction costs.

Instructions

Fetch current gas price, max priority fee and a one-block fee history sample.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "chainId": "<chainId>"
    },
    "name": "rpc_get_fee_data"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainIdYesEVM chain ID (for example 1 for Ethereum mainnet)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Fetch' communicates a read-only operation, and the expected data items are listed. However, it does not disclose units, return structure, error behavior, or any chain-specific limitations, leaving meaningful gaps.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It states the action and the full result set efficiently.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a one-parameter RPC tool the description is adequate, but it lacks an output schema and does not explain the structure of the 'one-block fee history sample' or the units of the returned fee values. Error behavior and supported network constraints are also unstated.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%: the only parameter, chainId, is already documented with type, range, and an Ethereum mainnet example. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and identifies a distinct resource (fee data), then names the exact contents: current gas price, max priority fee, and a one-block fee history sample. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like rpc_estimate_gas or rpc_get_block.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rpc_estimate_gas or rpc_get_block. The description states what the tool returns but gives no conditions, exclusions, or comparison signals.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools