solana-infra-mcp

Priority fee estimate

priority_fee_estimate

Estimate Solana priority fees from recent p50/p75/p90/max micro-lamports per CU to price compute-unit fees for transaction landing.

Instructions

Recent prioritization-fee distribution (p50/p75/p90/max micro-lamports per CU) to price compute-unit fees for landing.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "priority_fee_estimate"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	No	RPC URL (default: SOLANA_RPC_URL, else public mainnet-beta)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavior. It indicates the tool reads recent fee distribution data, which is non-destructive, but it does not explicitly state it is read-only or mention rate limits or other side effects. The provided detail about the response format adds some value beyond the name.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key information: what it returns, the specific percentiles, units, and the intended use. Every word earns its place, with no redundant phrasing.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully explains the output distribution and its purpose. It is complete for a fee-estimation tool and does not leave significant gaps for an agent to misuse it.

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?

The schema already documents the single optional 'url' parameter with 100% coverage. The description does not add additional meaning about the parameter beyond its purpose, but the schema is sufficient. The baseline of 3 applies because schema coverage is high.

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 clearly states the tool returns a prioritization-fee distribution with specific percentiles (p50/p75/p90/max) and units (micro-lamports per CU). It also states its purpose ('to price compute-unit fees for landing'), making it distinct from sibling tools like rpc_health or submit_transaction.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implies the tool is used for pricing compute-unit fees before landing transactions. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear and no sibling tool serves a similar purpose, so no exclusions are necessary.

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

Deploy Server