SYNTHORA defi-llama-tvl-ranking: Top DeFi protocols by TVL with rank, chain, category and 1d/7d change, capped list (default 50, max 200 via {"limit":N}). Source: api.llama.fi/protocols (DefiLlama), keyless, timestamped. [x402: 0.01 USDC per call on Base]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | top N, default 50, max 200 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "limit": 50
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / inputRemoved value: -{
- "description": "product parameters (JSON or text). Example: {\"limit\": 50}",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / limitAdded value: +{
+ "description": "top N, default 50, max 200",
+ "examples": [
+ 50
+ ],
+ "type": "integer"
+}Input schema / properties / input / descriptionPrevious value: -"product parameters (JSON or text). Example: {\"input\": \"{\\\"limit\\\": 50}\"}"New value: +"product parameters (JSON or text). Example: {\"limit\": 50}"Input schema / properties / input / descriptionPrevious value: -"product parameters (JSON or text). Example: {\"limit\": 50}"New value: +"product parameters (JSON or text). Example: {\"input\": \"{\\\"limit\\\": 50}\"}"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), but the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the upstream source and its keyless nature, timestamping, and a per-call x402 cost on Base. That cost/auth disclosure materially helps an agent decide whether to call it.
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 dense sentence that front-loads the resource and return fields before constraints and cost. The 'SYNTHORA defi-llama-tvl-ranking:' prefix is mildly redundant with the tool name but overall it wastes little space.
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, the description usefully names the return fields and the list cap, plus source and payment model. A brief note on pagination or sort order would make it fully complete, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.
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% and the only parameter is already documented as 'top N, default 50, max 200'. The description repeats the same default/max, adding 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?
Specific verb+resource: ranks DeFi protocols by TVL, and it enumerates the returned fields (rank, chain, category, 1d/7d change), which cleanly separates it from siblings like defi_yields and stablecoin_supply.
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?
The 'Top DeFi protocols by TVL' framing implies when to call it, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no sibling alternatives (e.g. defi_yields) named. Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.