Skip to main content
Glama

Defillama

by io.github.pipeworx-io
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Defi Tvl Protocols

defi_tvl_protocols
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search DeFi protocols by name or category to compare their total value locked. Returns protocol name, TVL amount, blockchain, and category.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
searchNoFilter protocols by name (case-insensitive substring match)
categoryNoFilter by category (e.g., "DEXes", "Lending", "Bridge", "CDP", "Yield")

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
showingYesNumber of protocols returned (max 50)
protocolsYes
total_matchedYesTotal number of protocols matching filters

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / properties / protocols / items / properties / tvl / type
      Previous value: -"number"New value: +[
+  "number",
+  "null"
+]
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "protocols": {
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "category": {
+            "description": "Protocol category (DEX, Lending, Bridge, etc.)",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "chain": {
+            "description": "Primary blockchain",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "chains": {
+            "description": "List of supported chains",
+            "items": {
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            "type": "array"
+          },
+          "change_1d_pct": {
+            "description": "1-day TVL change percentage",
+            "type": [
+              "number",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "change_7d_pct": {
+            "description": "7-day TVL change percentage",
+            "type": [
+              "number",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "name": {
+            "description": "Protocol name",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "slug": {
+            "description": "Protocol slug identifier",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "symbol": {
+            "description": "Token symbol if applicable",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "tvl": {
+            "description": "Total value locked in USD",
+            "type": "number"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "name",
+          "slug",
+          "tvl",
+          "chain",
+          "chains",
+          "category"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "showing": {
+      "description": "Number of protocols returned (max 50)",
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "total_matched": {
+      "description": "Total number of protocols matching filters",
+      "type": "integer"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "total_matched",
+    "showing",
+    "protocols"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "search": "aave"
+  },
+  {
+    "category": "DEXes"
+  }
+]
  4. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the returned field list, which is largely redundant given a declared output schema, and adds no auth, rate-limit, or result-count context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and scope, with the return fields trailing. No filler or repetition.

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?

With a rich annotation set, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient for correct invocation. The main gap is routing guidance against its many DeFi siblings, but nothing essential 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%, so both parameters (search, category) are fully documented in the schema, including the case-insensitive substring behavior. The description restates name/category filtering without adding format, syntax, or default details beyond what the schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Search DeFi protocols") plus scope (by name or category) and purpose (compare TVL), and lists returned fields. It distinguishes itself reasonably from chain-level siblings like defi_chain_tvl, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.

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?

"to compare their total value locked" implies the use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no named alternative among the many DeFi siblings (defi_protocol_detail, defi_chain_tvl, defi_yields). Usage must be inferred.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Defillama toolsInspect
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