agent_oneshot_get_fee_dataFetch 1Shot public relayer fee data for a chain and payment token pair to estimate relayer costs before submitting transactions.
Fetch 1Shot public relayer fee data for a chain/payment token pair.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | No | Payment token address. Defaults to Base USDC when chainId is Base. | |
| chainId | No | Chain ID. Defaults to Base (8453). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Public relayer fee data' implies a read with no auth, but it does not disclose return format, whether fees are cached/time-sensitive, rate limits, or freshness, which matters for fee estimation.
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 zero filler. It is appropriately sized, though it is so terse that it omits useful routing context rather than being over-verbose.
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?
For a two-optional-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate: purpose is clear, but with no annotations and no output schema the agent gets no signal about return shape or behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (token, chainId) are fully documented in the schema, including their defaults. The phrase 'chain/payment token pair' merely restates those two params and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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), resource (1Shot public relayer fee data), and scope (chain/payment token pair). An agent can tell this apart from siblings like agent_oneshot_relay_calls or agent_oneshot_get_status, though the description doesn't explicitly contrast them.
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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is given. The description only says what is fetched, not when an agent should call it (e.g., before relaying a call to estimate cost) versus checking capabilities or status.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.