Skip to main content
Glama

Genexxis paid agent tools (x402)

defi_defi_tvl

DeFi TVL from DefiLlama: top protocols filtered by category and chain (TVL, 1d/7d change, market cap, chains), chain TVL rankings with protocol counts, or one protocol with per-chain TVL split and 90 days of daily TVL history. Price: $0.005 USDC per call, paid with x402 on Base.

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": "defi_defi_tvl"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNoprotocols (default), chains or protocol
nameNoprotocol name or slug for mode=protocol, e.g. aave-v3
chainNochain filter, e.g. Ethereum, Base, Solana
categoryNoDefiLlama category for mode=protocols, e.g. Lending, Dexs, Liquid Staking
maxItemsNo1-100, default 10

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well by disclosing output fields, history depth, and payment cost/mechanism via x402 on Base. It still omits rate limits, error behavior, and explicit read-only confirmation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is dense but front-loaded and every clause contributes useful detail about modes, returned fields, and pricing. The long main sentence is slightly hard to scan but not wasteful.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a five-parameter, three-mode tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides substantial completeness: mode outcomes, returned data, history depth, and cost. Some operational details remain unspecified, but the core invocation context is covered.

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%, so the schema already defines all five optional parameters. The description adds useful mode context but does not add much parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description names a specific resource and explains the three query modes: top protocols, chain rankings, and single-protocol history. It is clear enough to identify the tool's job, but it does not distinguish it from nearby sibling tools such as defi_summary or defi_pool.

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?

It gives clear context for choosing among its own modes by describing what each mode returns. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of sibling DeFi tools or when not to use it.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources