Stablecoin lending yield benchmarks — USDC/USDT/DAI supply APY across Aave, Compound, Morpho, Spark by chain. p25/p50/p75 bands, TVL filter, and spread vs 3-month T-bill. Source: DeFiLlama + FRED. Live source. Returns HTTP 503 (no charge) if upstream source unavailable for >50% of fields.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asset | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses the live data source, the HTTP 503 error behavior with no charge on upstream unavailability, and data provenance (DeFiLlama + FRED). This adds substantial operational context beyond what annotations provide.
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 information-dense but structured with clear fragments: benchmark scope, output metrics, data sources, and error behavior. Every phrase contributes value without 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?
Given there is no output schema, the description adequately describes the return data (APY, p25/p50/p75 bands, spread vs T-bill) and the tool's behavior (live source, 503 on upstream failure). It is complete for a simple read-only benchmark tool with one parameter.
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 schema has one parameter (asset) with no description (0% coverage). The description lists the stablecoins covered (USDC/USDT/DAI) and implies the asset filter, but does not explicitly explain the 'asset' parameter, the 'all' option, or the mismatched 'TVL filter' mention without a corresponding schema parameter.
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 specifies a specific verb+resource: provides stablecoin lending yield benchmarks for USDC/USDT/DAI across named protocols (Aave, Compound, Morpho, Spark) and by chain. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing specifically on stablecoin yields.
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 its use for stablecoin yield data but does not explicitly state when to choose it over sibling tools like get_defi_yield_benchmark, nor does it provide exclusion criteria or alternatives.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct benchmark category (e.g., chain TVL, yield, options IV, RWA), with no overlapping purposes. The overview tool is clearly different. Agents can easily distinguish them.
Most tools follow 'get_<descriptor>_benchmark' pattern, but 'get_stratalize_overview' breaks the pattern. The naming is otherwise consistent and descriptive.
With 9 tools covering major DeFi and crypto benchmarks (TVL, yields, gas, options, RWA, etc.), the set is well-scoped and each tool serves a clear purpose.
The tool surface covers a broad range of crypto/DeFi benchmarks. Minor gaps exist (e.g., spot price feeds, exchange data), but the set is sufficient for benchmarking and agent discovery.