Skip to main content
Glama

Crypto, web, finance and app data tools

Blockchain TVL Ranking

chains_tvl

Blockchains ranked by DeFi total value locked with share of the market, gas token and chain id. Use to compare ecosystems (Ethereum, Solana, Base, Arbitrum...) or track where capital is moving.

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": "chains_tvl"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It implies a read-only ranking ordered by TVL and lists the returned fields, but says nothing about data freshness/snapshot timing, sorting guarantees on ties, or how many results are returned — meaningful context for a time-sensitive TVL ranking.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and ordering, then the use case. No filler, no restatement of the name or title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described (the description partially duplicates them anyway). For a single-parameter read tool this is nearly complete; only the missing note on data freshness and the undocumented limit keep it from a 5.

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 0% for the single 'limit' parameter (default 30), and the description never mentions it. The parameter is self-explanatory from its name, so the gap is small, but the description does not compensate for the zero coverage.

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?

States a specific resource and verb-like operation: 'Blockchains ranked by DeFi total value locked', plus the extra returned fields (market share, gas token, chain id). It is conceptually distinct from protocol-level siblings such as defi_protocols_tvl, but it never names that sibling to make the boundary explicit.

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?

'Use to compare ecosystems (Ethereum, Solana, Base, Arbitrum...) or track where capital is moving' gives concrete usage scenarios with named worked examples. It stops short of exclusions or pointing to defi_protocols_tvl for protocol-level data, so the agent must infer the alternative.

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