SiteCheck Crypto & Finance

Curve Finance pools on Ethereum: pool name, total USD value

finance_curve_finance_pools

Read-only

Curve Finance pools on Ethereum (all but the tiniest, as Curve's 'big' list): pool name, total USD value locked in the pool, and each coin with its USD price and balance, sorted by pool size. Optional name filter. Related tools on this server, for a different need: crypto_curve_gauge_weights when you need Curve Finance gauges on one chain: CRV emission APR range; crypto_balancer_v2_pools when you need Balancer V2 pools by total liquidity: pool name, type. 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": "finance_curve_finance_pools"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	How many pools, 1 to 50 (default 10)
`search`	No	Optional text to match in the pool name, e.g. 3pool, tricrypto

Output Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description's added value is the coverage caveat (excludes the smallest pools per Curve's 'big' list), the sort order, and the billing model ($0.002 USDC via x402, failed calls not charged). It omits pagination or rate-limit behavior, which is a minor gap given the limit parameter.

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 return payload is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the sibling routing and then the pricing note, so nothing important is buried. It is dense but every clause carries information; only the pricing sentence reads as boilerplate common to the server's tools.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still summarizes them for fast matching. Two optional parameters at full schema coverage, a read-only annotation profile, and the pool-coverage caveat leave nothing an agent needs in order to select and call this correctly.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the 1–50 range and default for limit. The description only adds "Optional name filter", which restates the search parameter's schema description rather than extending it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific protocol, chain and resource (Curve Finance pools on Ethereum) and enumerates the returned fields: pool name, total USD value locked, and each coin with price and balance, sorted by pool size. It also scopes coverage ("all but the tiniest, as Curve's 'big' list"), which no sibling name implies.

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?

It explicitly routes two adjacent needs elsewhere (crypto_curve_gauge_weights for gauges, crypto_balancer_v2_pools for Balancer V2 liquidity) with the phrase "for a different need". It stops short of stating when this tool should be avoided within its own domain, but the substitution guidance is concrete.

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?