Live DeFi overview: total value locked (TVL), top chains by TVL and stablecoin market cap. Call for DeFi flows, liquidity and dry powder, or risk-on/risk-off reads.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| totalTvl | Yes | Total value locked across DeFi, in USD. | |
| topChains | Yes | ||
| stablecoinMarketCap | No | Dry powder waiting on the sidelines. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying the data returned ('TVL, top chains, stablecoin market cap') and the 'Live' nature. No behavioral traits are hidden or contradicted.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the key output details and use cases. Every word serves a purpose without redundancy. Highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description adequately covers the output content and use cases. It could mention that the output is a snapshot (not historical) or include a note about data freshness, but it is sufficient for selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so the description cannot add parameter semantics. With 100% schema coverage and no params, the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to discuss parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool provides a 'Live DeFi overview' with specific metrics: 'total value locked (TVL), top chains by TVL and stablecoin market cap.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_btc_network (Bitcoin-specific) and get_crypto_market (broader market). The verb 'Call for' reinforces the purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says 'Call for DeFi flows, liquidity and dry powder, or risk-on/risk-off reads,' which gives clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly exclude other use cases or name alternative tools, leaving some ambiguity for agents unfamiliar with the sibling set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target distinct domains (network, market, derivatives, macro, on-chain flows), and overlapping tools like get_derivatives vs get_derivatives_aggregate are clearly differentiated by scope and detail level. However, get_crypto_market and get_market_dominance both cover market-wide data, and get_btc_network and get_eth_whale_flows both touch on-chain activity, which could cause some confusion.
All tool names follow a consistent get_ prefix with descriptive nouns (e.g., get_btc_network, get_defi_overview, get_execution_cost). The pattern is uniform across all 16 tools, with no camelCase or inconsistent verb styles, making it very predictable for an agent.
With 16 tools, the server covers a broad but coherent domain of crypto market analysis—prices, on-chain, derivatives, macro, sentiment, and execution. Each tool addresses a distinct analytical need, and the count is well-scoped for a comprehensive agent, not excessive given the breadth of features.
The surface is remarkably complete for a market analysis agent, covering spot, derivatives, on-chain, macro, sentiment, history, and execution costs. Minor gaps exist: no direct tool for decentralized exchange (DEX) trading volumes or specific coin list discovery, and no tool for order book depth beyond the execution cost tool. However, agents can work around these with existing tools.