Agent Margin Router

DeFi Yields

defi_yields

Read-only

Live DeFi pool yields (APY, TVL, stablecoin flag) across 100+ chains and protocols from DefiLlama. Filter by chain, asset, project, minimum TVL; sorted by APY. Pay per call with USDC or USDT on Base via x402. 3 free calls per wallet.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`asset`	No	Asset symbol in pool, e.g. USDC.
`chain`	No	Chain filter, e.g. Base, Ethereum.
`limit`	No	Max pools (1-50, default 10).
`wallet`	No	Your EVM wallet address (0x...). Unlocks the free tier (3 free calls per wallet).
`api_key`	No	Optional AMR enterprise API key.
`project`	No	Protocol slug, e.g. aave-v3.
`x_payment`	No	Optional signed x402 payment payload (base64 JSON) for USDC/USDT on Base.
`min_tvl_usd`	No	Minimum TVL in USD (default 100000).
`stablecoins_only`	No	Only stablecoin pools.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pools`	Yes
`token`	No	Token actually used for payment (USDC, USDT or FREE).	USDC
`source`	Yes
`filters`	Yes
`routing`	Yes	How the request was routed (provider, fallback, cache, latency).
`cost_usdc`	Yes	Price charged in stablecoin units (USDC/USDT 1:1); 0 on the free tier.
`fetched_at`	No	UTC timestamp when the data was fetched.
`pool_count`	Yes
`total_matching`	Yes
`filtered_outliers`	No
`freshness_seconds`	Yes	Age of the underlying data in seconds (0 = fetched live).
`x_payment_response`	No	Base64-encoded x402 settlement receipt (mirrors the X-PAYMENT-RESPONSE header). Only present when the call was paid with `x_payment`.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 15, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "description": "Response for ``POST /defi-yields``.",
+  "properties": {
+    "cost_usdc": {
+      "description": "Price charged in stablecoin units (USDC/USDT 1:1); 0 on the free tier.",
+      "title": "Cost Usdc",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "fetched_at": {
+      "description": "UTC timestamp when the data was fetched.",
+      "format": "date-time",
+      "title": "Fetched At",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "filtered_outliers": {
+      "default": 0,
+      "title": "Filtered Outliers",
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "filters": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "title": "Filters",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "freshness_seconds": {
+      "description": "Age of the underlying data in seconds (0 = fetched live).",
+      "title": "Freshness Seconds",
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "pool_count": {
+      "title": "Pool Count",
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "pools": {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": true,
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "title": "Pools",
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "routing": {
+      "description": "How the request was routed (provider, fallback, cache, latency).",
+      "properties": {
+        "cache_hit": {
+          "default": false,
+          "description": "True if the result was served from cache.",
+          "title": "Cache Hit",
+          "type": "boolean"
+        },
+        "fallback_used": {
+          "default": false,
+          "description": "True if the primary provider failed and a fallback served the result.",
+          "title": "Fallback Used",
+          "type": "boolean"
+        },
+        "latency_ms": {
+          "default": 0,
+          "description": "End-to-end routing latency in milliseconds.",
+          "title": "Latency Ms",
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        "provider": {
+          "description": "Name of the upstream provider that served the result.",
+          "title": "Provider",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "providers_tried": {
+          "description": "Providers attempted, in order.",
+          "items": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "title": "Providers Tried",
+          "type": "array"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "provider"
+      ],
+      "title": "RoutingMeta",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "source": {
+      "title": "Source",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "token": {
+      "default": "USDC",
+      "description": "Token actually used for payment (USDC, USDT or FREE).",
+      "title": "Token",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "total_matching": {
+      "title": "Total Matching",
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "x_payment_response": {
+      "description": "Base64-encoded x402 settlement receipt (mirrors the X-PAYMENT-RESPONSE header). Only present when the call was paid with `x_payment`.",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "freshness_seconds",
+    "cost_usdc",
+    "routing",
+    "filters",
+    "pools",
+    "pool_count",
+    "total_matching",
+    "source"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed5 schema fields changedSep 13, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / limit / default
```
Added value: +10
```
- addedInput schema / properties / limit / maximum
```
Added value: +50
```
- addedInput schema / properties / limit / minimum
```
Added value: +1
```
- addedInput schema / properties / min_tvl_usd / default
```
Added value: +100000
```
- changedInput schema / properties / wallet / description
```
Previous value: -"Your EVM wallet address (0x...). Unlocks the free tier (3 calls per wallet)."New value: +"Your EVM wallet address (0x...). Unlocks the free tier (3 free calls per wallet)."
```
AddedSep 11, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses a billing model (USDC/USDT on Base via x402) and a free-tier quota (3 free calls per wallet), which go beyond the annotations. It also names the external data source (DefiLlama) and confirms the read-only nature via sorted output, with no contradiction to readOnlyHint/openWorldHint.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four short sentences each carry distinct information: data source and scope, filter and sort behavior, payment method, and free-tier quota. There is no filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With a complete input schema and an output schema present, the description adequately covers source, filtering, sorting, and the non-obvious payment/quota model. It does not explain return value structure, but that is covered by the output schema; only minor payment mechanics are left implicit.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a high-level filter list and sort order (by APY), but does not elaborate on individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the resource ('DeFi pool yields'), the source ('DefiLlama'), and the key dimensions (APY, TVL, stablecoin flag). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like defi_tvl by focusing on yields across chains/protocols with filter and sort behavior.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage context by enumerating filter options and data scope, but it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over defi_tvl, token_price, or other alternatives. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Agent Margin Router tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.