Top DeFi yield pools by APY. (x402: 0.001 USDC per call)
HTTP equivalent: GET /x402/defi-yield 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 adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the title annotation: it discloses a per-call cost (0.001 USDC), the x402 payment protocol, authentication headers, and the HTTP endpoint. This is valuable because annotations provide no such details. However, it does not describe the output format or what 'top' means (e.g., number of pools).
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 exceptionally concise and front-loaded: the core purpose appears in the first line, followed by cost and authentication details. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the structure is easy to parse. No fluff or redundancy.
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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema endpoint, the description provides the essential information: what it returns (top pools by APY), how much it costs, how to authenticate, and the HTTP equivalent. While it could specify the response structure, the simplicity of the tool makes this sufficient. It also includes payment details that are critical for invocation.
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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details because none are needed. Payment-related headers are mentioned but are not part of the input schema, so they serve as usage notes rather than parameter semantics.
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 the tool's function: it returns top DeFi yield pools ranked by APY. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like defi_yield_rates or defi_yields_pools by specifying 'Top' and the ranking criterion. The HTTP equivalent further reinforces the endpoint's purpose.
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 implies usage context by stating what the tool returns (top pools by APY), but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool over alternative defi tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. There is no comparison to siblings, so guidance is only implicit.
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.