DaoRoute
Server Details
Non-custodial MCP decision layer for AI agents evaluating stablecoin allocation routes with risk scoring, security gates, evidence snapshots, execution metadata, and signed attestations.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 2.6/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of DeFi intelligence: market overview, allocation decisions, pool details, and protocol security. No overlapping purposes.
All tools follow a consistent 'get_' + noun pattern in snake_case, providing clear and predictable naming.
Four tools is well-scoped for a focused server on market intelligence and allocation, covering key functionalities without unnecessary bloat.
Core operations are covered, but missing browsing capabilities (e.g., list protocols or pools) could limit agent discovery, though not critical for primary use cases.
Available Tools
4 toolsget_market_snapshotCInspect
Return aggregate DaoRoute market, data coverage, and candidate pool intelligence without exposing raw datasets.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asset | No | USDC | |
| chain | No | auto | |
| max_pools | No | ||
| verbosity | No | full | |
| risk_profile | No | conservative | |
| stablecoin_only | No | ||
| min_pool_tvl_usd | No |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'without exposing raw datasets,' which is minimal. No mention of read-only nature, side effects, permissions, or rate limits.
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 a single sentence, which is concise but lacks structure and key details. It conveys the core function but could be more informative without being verbose.
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 complexity (7 parameters, sibling tools, output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain parameter purposes, output nature, or when to use this tool, leaving agents to guess.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds no meaning to the 7 parameters. It does not explain how asset, chain, max_pools, verbosity, risk_profile, stablecoin_only, or min_pool_tvl_usd relate to the aggregate output.
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 returns aggregate market, data coverage, and candidate pool intelligence, using a specific verb ('Return') and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_optimal_allocation or get_pool_evidence.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks explicit context, use cases, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_optimal_allocationCInspect
Return a risk-adjusted stablecoin allocation decision.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asset | Yes | ||
| chain | Yes | ||
| max_pools | No | ||
| min_pools | No | ||
| verbosity | No | full | |
| risk_profile | Yes | ||
| time_horizon | No | flexible | |
| capital_amount | Yes | ||
| signer_address | Yes | ||
| max_slippage_bps | No | ||
| min_pool_tvl_usd | No | ||
| excluded_protocols | No | ||
| attestation_required | No | ||
| max_allocation_per_pool_bps | No |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it only states it returns a decision without mentioning side effects, data sources, or required authorizations. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
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?
While very concise, the description is under-specified and does not front-load important details. It sacrifices necessary information for brevity.
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 complexity (14 parameters, output schema exists), the description is woefully incomplete. It fails to explain the allocation logic, parameter roles, or output structure, making it inadequate for correct 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to any of the 14 parameters. An agent cannot infer what each parameter does or how to set them correctly.
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?
Description clearly states it returns a risk-adjusted stablecoin allocation decision, which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like get_market_snapshot or get_pool_evidence.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context on prerequisites or exclusions. The description is purely declarative without usage hints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_pool_evidenceBInspect
Return detailed evidence for a pool lookup: APR history, TVL, risk context, and suggested follow-up actions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | No | ||
| pool_id | No | ||
| protocol | No | ||
| verbosity | No | full | |
| history_days | No | ||
| token_symbol | No |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns data (APR history, TVL, risk context, suggested actions), which implies a read operation. It does not disclose any destructive behavior, authentication needs, or rate limits. The description is honest but lacks depth beyond the stated output.
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 a single sentence that efficiently states the purpose and output components. There is no wasted text. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the output list, but it remains concise and front-loaded.
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?
With 6 parameters and no parameter descriptions, the agent lacks crucial context to fill in inputs correctly. The description mentions output components but not how parameters affect them. An output schema exists but is not shown. The tool is moderately complex, and the description is insufficient for an agent to use it correctly without additional knowledge.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. However, the description does not explain any of the 6 parameters (chain, pool_id, protocol, verbosity, history_days, token_symbol). There is no guidance on what values to provide or how they affect the output. The enumeration for verbosity is not explained.
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 returns detailed evidence for a pool lookup, including APR history, TVL, risk context, and suggested follow-up actions. The verb 'Return' and the resource 'detailed evidence for a pool lookup' are specific. Sibling tools like get_market_snapshot and get_optimal_allocation suggest different scopes, so the purpose is differentiated.
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 instead of siblings. The description only says 'for a pool lookup,' but does not explain when to choose this over get_market_snapshot or get_protocol_security_status. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_protocol_security_statusCInspect
Return live security status for a supported protocol.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| protocol | Yes | ||
| verbosity | No | full |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies 'live' data but does not clarify latency, authentication needs, or potential side effects. The read-only nature is inferred 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 a single concise sentence, but it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity. While concise, it could be restructured to include more useful information.
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 presence of an output schema, the description still lacks context about the return value's structure or content. It does not cover the scope of 'live security status', leaving the agent with insufficient information for appropriate use.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters. It does not explain what 'protocol' values are supported or how 'verbosity' affects the response.
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 uses a clear verb 'Return' and specifies the resource 'live security status' for 'supported protocol'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_market_snapshot and get_optimal_allocation, which cover different areas. However, it does not elaborate on what 'security status' includes.
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 or at all. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!