DefiLlama protocol overview / TVL movers. Params: { limit?: int } (x402: 0.001 USDC per call)
HTTP equivalent: GET /x402/defi-analytics Payment: x402 protocol — send X-PAYMENT header with base64 payment payload, or X-API-Key / X-Owner-Key / Bearer token to bypass.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the cost (0.001 USDC per call) and authentication methods (X-PAYMENT header or API keys) which are behavioral traits not covered by annotations. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe the response format, leaving some behavioral details uncovered. The mention of HTTP equivalent GET implies a safe read operation but is not explicitly stated.
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?
The description is compact, with three sentences covering purpose, parameters, cost, and authentication. It is front-loaded with the core function and avoids unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse.
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?
The description addresses the key aspects of a simple tool: purpose, a parameter, and authorization. However, it lacks return value details (there is no output schema) and does not differentiate from many similar defi tools in the sibling list, leaving an agent uncertain about expected output and when to choose this tool.
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?
The input schema is empty but allows additional properties, so the description's parameter note 'limit?: int' adds valuable meaning that the schema does not provide. It indicates an optional integer parameter but does not explain what the limit constrains (e.g., number of results), which is a minor gap.
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?
The description identifies the tool as a DefiLlama protocol overview and TVL movers, which is specific enough to indicate the general function. However, it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'get' or 'list') and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like defi_protocol_tvl or defi_tvl_ranking, making the scope slightly ambiguous.
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 description provides payment and authentication instructions (x402, USDC, headers) but does not explain when to use this tool versus the numerous Defi-related siblings available. No context is given about typical use cases or exclusions, so an agent has no basis for selecting this over alternative tools.
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.
Multiple tool pairs are exact duplicates (e.g., wallet_analysis/wallet_analyzer, honeypot_check/rugpull_detector, defi_yield/defi_yield_rates) with identical descriptions, and many overlapping scanners (squeeze_scanner variants). An agent cannot reliably distinguish these tools.
Names are all snake_case, but conventions vary wildly: some are resource names (btc_price), some are actions (list_magnets), some are generic utilities (calculator), and duplicates use different naming patterns for the same function (wallet_analysis vs wallet_analyzer). No consistent verb_noun or resource_action pattern.
139 tools is an extreme count for any MCP server, far exceeding the 50+ threshold. The scope is a grab-bag of unrelated domains (crypto, FDA, SEC, utilities, web scraping), suggesting no curation.
The set is a shallow pile of read-only queries and utilities with no lifecycle management for any one domain. Many sub-areas have only one or two tools, and duplicates occupy slots where distinct operations should be. The lack of a clear domain makes completeness impossible to assess, but the surface is redundant rather than comprehensive.