DefiLlama yields pools top APY. Req: { limit?: int, chain?: string, stable?: bool } (x402: 0.001 USDC per call)
HTTP equivalent: GET /x402/defi-yields-pools 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 important behavioral context: the tool requires payment via the x402 protocol (0.001 USDC per call) and explains authentication options. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention rate limits or response behavior, leaving some transparency gaps since annotations only provide a title.
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 efficient, conveying purpose, request parameters, cost, HTTP equivalent, and payment alternatives in just two sentences. Every component earns its place without unnecessary elaboration.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool returns conceptually (top APY pools), how to pass parameters, and how to handle payment/authentication. It could be improved by describing the response structure or any pagination behavior, but it is adequate for a basic query 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?
With an empty input schema, the description fully compensates by listing the parameters limit, chain, and stable with their types and optional status. This adds meaning beyond the schema, though it does not elaborate on the exact effect of each parameter (e.g., chain filters by network, stable filters to stablecoins).
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 specific resource (DefiLlama yields pools) and the scope (top APY), making the tool's purpose clear despite not using an explicit verb like 'fetch' or 'get'. It distinguishes from many sibling tools by focusing on top APY pools, though it does not explicitly compare to similar DeFi yield tools.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as defi_yield_rates or defi_protocol_tvl. The description implies usage for retrieving top yield pools, but there are no explicit use-case boundaries or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent without decision support.
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.