DeFi protocol TVL rankings with 24h change. (x402: 0.001 USDC per call)
HTTP equivalent: GET /x402/defi-tvl-ranking 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 contain only a title with no behavioral hints, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It does disclose that the tool requires x402 payment (0.001 USDC per call) and provides alternative authentication methods (API keys/bearer token). However, it does not mention the return format, potential sorting order, rate limits, or side effects. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.
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 concise and efficiently structured. It leads with the core purpose, then provides essential cost/payment information. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. The line breaks improve readability and separate the functional description from the access details.
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?
For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what data is returned (rankings, 24h change) and how to access it (x402 payment and auth bypass). It omits specifics like response structure or pagination, but given the simple nature of the tool, the description is largely complete. Payment details are a critical addition.
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 has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description does not need to add parameter documentation. The schema's additionalProperties:true is present but no properties are defined, and the description does not mention optional parameters, which is acceptable given the apparent no-parameter interface.
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 identifies the tool's output as 'DeFi protocol TVL rankings with 24h change,' specifying the resource (protocol TVL) and the key attribute (rankings with 24h change). It implies a retrieval operation even without an explicit verb. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like defi_protocol_tvl or defi_chains_tvl, the focus on 'rankings' distinguishes it sufficiently.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only includes HTTP and payment details, which are operational rather than selection-oriented. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or why one would choose this over defi_analytics or other DeFi 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.