Current total value locked (USD) for DeFi protocols by DefiLlama slug (e.g. uniswap, aave, lido). Paid tool: $0.001 per call via x402 (USDC on Base).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| protocols | Yes | DefiLlama protocol slugs, e.g. ["uniswap","aave"] |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behaviors. It mentions the tool is paid ($0.001 per call), which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose rate limits, auth requirements, or whether the operation is read-only.
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 with two sentences: one for purpose and one for pricing. No redundant text, but could be slightly more structured with separate sections.
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 no output schema, the description states it returns 'total value locked (USD)', which is adequate. It handles the input array well. Could mention if output is per protocol or aggregated, but sufficient for an agent.
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 100% (the one parameter is fully described). The description adds practical context by providing example slugs and clarifying they are DefiLlama slugs, which goes beyond the schema's generic 'DefiLlama protocol slugs'.
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 current TVL (USD) for DeFi protocols using DefiLlama slugs, with concrete examples (uniswap, aave, lido). It is distinct from sibling tools like crypto_prices or gas_prices.
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 use for fetching TVL but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. The pricing note is a usage constraint, but no guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.
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 data domain: crypto_prices for spot prices, defi_tvl for DeFi TVL, gas_prices for gas fees, and service_info for server details. No overlap in purpose.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with two words: crypto_prices, defi_tvl, gas_prices, service_info. Predictable and readable.
4 tools for a real-time crypto data server is well-scoped. Each tool serves a clear and essential sub-domain without being too few or too many.
The set covers core real-time crypto data needs: spot prices, DeFi TVL, gas fees, and service information. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.