Single protocol TVL. Req: { protocol: string } e.g. aave (x402: 0.001 USDC per call)
HTTP equivalent: GET /x402/defi-protocol-tvl 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?
Annotations only include a title, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose payment requirements (x402, X-PAYMENT header, API keys/Bearer token), the HTTP endpoint, and the required parameter. However, it omits details about the return format, error behavior, or data freshness, which are important for a tool with no annotation hints.
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 and front-loaded: it states the purpose ('Single protocol TVL'), then gives the required parameter, example, HTTP equivalent, and payment info. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant wording, making it highly scannable for an agent.
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 covers purpose, parameter, HTTP endpoint, and payment, but lacks a description of the return value or valid protocol name formats. Since there is no output schema and annotations are minimal, the description should fill these gaps to be fully complete for an agent invoking the 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 (0 parameters), so the description's 'Req: { protocol: string } e.g. aave' provides essential parameter meaning that would otherwise be entirely absent. It could add more detail such as case sensitivity or value format, but given the zero-parameter baseline of 4, it does add value and meets that bar.
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 clearly states 'Single protocol TVL' with a concrete example ('aave'), specifying that this tool retrieves total value locked for an individual protocol. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like defi_chains_tvl and defi_tvl_ranking, which cover chain-level TVL and rankings respectively.
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 phrase 'Single protocol' provides clear context for when to use this tool: for fetching TVL of one protocol, as opposed to chain-level or ranking data. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or specify when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.
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.