SiteCheck Crypto & Finance

DeFi lending and liquidity pool yields from DefiLlama: APY

finance_defirate_yields

Read-only

DeFi lending and liquidity pool yields from DefiLlama: APY, base and reward APY, TVL, for pools filtered by chain or project, sorted by TVL. Data is DefiLlama's own estimates and changes often. Related tools on this server, for a different need: crypto_defillama_yields when you need DeFi pool APY, TVL, 7/30-day APY change. 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_defirate_yields"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`chain`	No	Optional chain name as DefiLlama writes it, e.g. Ethereum, Solana, Arbitrum
`limit`	No	How many pools, 1 to 50 (default 10)
`project`	No	Optional project slug, e.g. aave-v3, lido, curve-dex

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

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond them usefully: it warns the data are DefiLlama's own estimates that change often, and it discloses the $0.002 per successful x402 call with failed calls not charged — billing behavior an agent cannot infer from annotations.

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 purpose and returned fields are front-loaded in the first sentence, with caveats and pricing after. The second sentence is a slightly awkward run-on carrying two unrelated ideas (sibling routing and payment terms), but no sentence is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained; the description still covers data provenance, volatility, filters, sort order, and cost. The one incompleteness is that the sibling routing is ambiguous, leaving the agent without a clean selection rule for a very similar yields tool.

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 chain, project, and limit are already documented including examples and defaults. The description adds only the overall filtering-and-TVL-sort framing and nothing parameter-specific beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description names a concrete resource (DeFi lending and liquidity pool yields from DefiLlama) and the returned fields (APY, base and reward APY, TVL), plus the filtering and sort order. Its attempt at sibling differentiation is muddled: it points to crypto_defillama_yields for 'a different need' that is described with the same vocabulary (pool APY, TVL), so an agent cannot reliably tell the two apart.

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?

It gives implied usage context (filter by chain or project, sorted by TVL) and offers an explicit alternative, which is better than nothing. But the alternative is characterized as serving 'a different need' while being described almost identically to this tool, which is confusing rather than decisive guidance; no when-not-to-use condition is stated.

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?