Fetch Stellar network fee statistics to plan transactions and estimate costs before submitting.
Fetch network fee statistics for transaction planning and cost estimation
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| output | No | Format of the output | |
| rpcUrl | No | RPC server endpoint | |
| network | No | Name of network to use from config | |
| rpcHeaders | No | RPC Header(s) to include in requests to the RPC provider | |
| networkPassphrase | No | Network passphrase |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. "Fetch" implies a read, but nothing is said about rate limits, caching, freshness, required network configuration, or whether fee data is network-wide vs. per-operation — all material for a planning tool.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the purpose clause is stated before elaboration. Efficient, though extremely brief for the scope of the tool.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify what 'fee statistics' contains (base fee, priority fee, surge pricing) and that network/endpoint are selectable. It gives just enough to call the tool but leaves return-shape expectations unset.
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 100% across all 5 parameters, so the schema already documents output format, rpcUrl, network, rpcHeaders, and networkPassphrase. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the baseline-3 case.
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 (Fetch) and resource (network fee statistics), and frames the intent (transaction planning and cost estimation). No sibling tool covers fees, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated, keeping it short of a 5.
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?
"For transaction planning and cost estimation" gives a plausible use context, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative for related queries such as network health or ledger data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.