SiteCheck Crypto & Finance

DeFi pool APY, TVL, 7/30-day APY change

crypto_defillama_yields

Read-only

DeFi pool APY (total, base, reward), TVL, 7/30-day APY change and impermanent-loss estimate (il7d, ilRisk) from DefiLlama. Filter by project, chain and symbol; returns up to 20 pools by TVL. APY is DefiLlama's estimate, not a guaranteed return. Related tools on this server, for a different need: crypto_defillama_stablecoins when you need stablecoin market cap, 1/7/30-day circulating change, peg; crypto_defillama_tvl_oracle when you need current total value locked of one DeFi protocol. 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_defillama_yields"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`chain`	No	Chain name as DefiLlama writes it, e.g. Ethereum, Base, Arbitrum
`symbol`	No	Token symbol or pair text, e.g. USDC or WETH-USDC
`project`	No	DefiLlama project slug, e.g. aave-v3, curve-dex, uniswap-v3

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

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, it discloses a result cap and ordering (up to 20 pools by TVL), a data-quality caveat (APY is an estimate, not a guaranteed return), and a full cost model ($0.002 USDC per successful call via x402, failed calls not charged). The only gap is that it does not describe what an empty filter result or pagination looks like, but the output schema likely covers returns.

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?

The data fields are front-loaded, followed by filters, caveats, sibling routing, and pricing, with essentially no filler. It is dense — several distinct concerns packed into one paragraph — but every clause carries actionable information.

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 3-parameter read-only query tool with an output schema present, the description covers the data returned, the filter surface, the result cap, the reliability caveat, and the payment cost. 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.

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already carrying a DefiLlama-specific format example, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates 'filter by project, chain and symbol' and adds no syntax or combination semantics (e.g., whether filters AND together) beyond the schema.

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 names the specific resource and its fields (pool APY total/base/reward, TVL, 7/30-day APY change, il7d/ilRisk) and the source (DefiLlama). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the two sibling DefiLlama tools by naming them and their different data domains.

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?

It gives explicit routing rules: use crypto_defillama_stablecoins for stablecoin market cap/peg data, and crypto_defillama_tvl_oracle for a single protocol's current TVL. The filter dimensions (project, chain, symbol) further imply the use case, so an agent can select this tool without opening other schemas.

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?