SiteCheck Crypto & Finance

Balancer V2 pools by total liquidity: pool name, type

crypto_balancer_v2_pools

Read-only

Balancer V2 pools by total liquidity (USD): pool name, type (weighted, stable, composable stable, and others), token symbols with weights where the pool has them, 24h volume and address. Top 1 to 20. Values are as the Balancer API reports them; some pools show implausible liquidity and are not corrected. Related tools on this server, for a different need: finance_curve_finance_pools when you need Curve Finance pools on Ethereum: pool name, total USD value; crypto_btc_mining_pools when you need Bitcoin mining pool hashrate and block shares over 24h, 3d. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "crypto_balancer_v2_pools"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	How many pools, 1 to 20 (default 5)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`count`	No
`pools`	No
`source`	No
`checkedAt`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations it discloses two things the agent cannot get elsewhere: a data-quality caveat that values are uncorrected as the Balancer API reports them and some pools show implausible liquidity, and the payment model ($0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 on Base/Solana/Arc, failed calls free). Caching/paid-retry decisions and result trust can be made directly from this text.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Content is front-loaded with what is returned, then the data-quality caveat, then sibling routing, then price — a sensible information hierarchy. It is dense and slightly overpacked (the payment clause is verbose), but no sentence is redundant.

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

Completeness5/5

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

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained, and the description instead covers the things the schema cannot: ranking scope, data caveats, sibling disambiguation, and cost. For a single-parameter, read-only listing tool this leaves no material gap for correct invocation.

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 single `limit` parameter is already documented in the schema. The description only restates 'Top 1 to 20', adding no new meaning such as default value handling or ordering semantics beyond liquidity rank. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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?

It names a specific resource and scope — Balancer V2 pools ranked by total liquidity in USD — and enumerates the returned fields (pool name, type taxonomy, token symbols with weights, 24h volume, address). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from named siblings (Curve Finance pools, Bitcoin mining pools), so an agent can tell it apart without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description routes the agent away from this tool when the need is Curve pools or BTC mining pool hashrate, naming concrete alternatives and the conditions that select them. It does not state positively when to prefer Balancer V2 over other venue-liquidity tools (e.g., crypto_dex_pool_liquidity, crypto_uniswap_v3_ticks), which keeps it short of a full when/when-not matrix.

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

All SiteCheck Crypto & Finance 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.

Resources

Need Help?