SiteCheck Crypto & Finance

Current total value locked of one DeFi protocol

crypto_defillama_tvl_oracle

Read-only

Current total value locked (TVL, USD) of one DeFi protocol from DefiLlama, by protocol slug (e.g. aave, uniswap-v3). Returns the single current TVL number only; chain breakdown and history are not included. Related tools on this server, for a different need: crypto_defillama_yields when you need DeFi pool APY, TVL, 7/30-day APY change; crypto_defillama_stablecoins when you need stablecoin market cap, 1/7/30-day circulating change, peg. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "protocol": "<protocol>"
    },
    "name": "crypto_defillama_tvl_oracle"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`protocol`	Yes	DefiLlama protocol slug, lowercase letters, digits and dashes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`source`	No
`tvlUsd`	No
`protocol`	No
`checkedAt`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), and an output schema covers the return value, so the bar is lower. The description does add real value by disclosing the paid-call model: $0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 on Base/Solana/Arc, with failed calls uncharged — a material pre-invocation consideration. It stops short of describing rate limits, protocol-slug lookup failure behavior, or data freshness/caching of 'current' TVL.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and exclusion before the sibling routing and pricing. Every sentence carries information, though the parenthetical feature lists inside the sibling references ('TVL, 7/30-day APY change', '1/7/30-day circulating change, peg') are slightly dense for routing purposes.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only lookup with an output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, disambiguation from the two nearest siblings, and the payment requirement. Nothing an agent needs before calling is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already defines the slug character set, so baseline is 3. The description adds concrete slug examples (aave, uniswap-v3) that tell the agent the identifier is a DefiLlama slug rather than a token symbol or display name — a useful, non-redundant clarification.

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?

States a specific verb-resource pair ('current total value locked of one DeFi protocol'), the source (DefiLlama), the unit (USD), and the keying parameter (protocol slug with examples). It also draws a hard scope boundary — 'Returns the single current TVL number only; chain breakdown and history are not included' — so an agent can immediately tell it apart from broader protocol-analytics tools.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly routes the agent to alternatives with the selecting condition: crypto_defillama_yields for pool APY/7-30-day change, crypto_defillama_stablecoins for stablecoin market cap and peg. It also states what this tool will not give (chain breakdown, history), which is the when-not guidance.

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?