defi_yields
$0.01 via x402: current top DeFi pools by chain/TVL, live from DefiLlama.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| top | No | ||
| chain | No | Default Base | |
| min_tvl | No | ||
| x_payment | No | ||
| stablecoin_only | No |
Riley Craig x402 Agent Store
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- Added
- Removed
- Added
- Removed
- First observed
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the data is live from DefiLlama and mentions a $0.01 cost via x402, which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not explain the payment mechanism, whether the operation has side effects, or any rate limits, leaving significant gaps.
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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence that packs purpose, source, and cost. It is not bloated, though the cryptic '$0.01 via x402' could be clearer. Overall, it is concise and efficiently sized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and only 20% parameter description coverage, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not convey the shape of the returned data, how to provide payment via x402, or the meaning of most parameters, making it hard for an agent to invoke correctly without additional assumptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 20% (only 'chain' has a description). The description mentions chain and TVL, helping map to 'chain' and 'min_tvl', but leaves 'top', 'stablecoin_only', and especially 'x_payment' unexplained. It does not adequately compensate for the low schema coverage.
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 clearly identifies the tool as returning current top DeFi pools filtered by chain and TVL, sourced live from DefiLlama. While it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', the intent is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like crypto_prices or dex_token_data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description only states what data it returns, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
C2.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5
Many tools occupy the same conceptual space: web_scrape vs markdown_web_scraper, post_check vs brand_ai_visibility_check, llm_chat_completions vs post_api_v1_chat_completions, chain_transaction_status vs chain_confirmations, and connect_token vs token_security_check + dex_token_data. Descriptions help in places, but for an agent facing 92 tools these near-overlapping endpoints will frequently cause misselection.
Naming Consistency2/5
Everything is snake_case, but the conventions diverge sharply: get_chain_* and chain_* coexist for the same RPC family, post_* names are HTTP-route artifacts, api_generate reverses noun_verb order, and many names are bare nouns rather than verb_noun. There is no predictable naming pattern an agent can rely on.
Tool Count1/5
At 92 tools this is far beyond the range where an agent can keep the surface coherent, even for a store. The flat tool list mixes products, bundles, aliases, proxies and single-use verticals, so most of the count is noise for any given task. A catalog/search/payment model with fewer exposed tools would fit the storefront purpose better.
Completeness3/5
The server has impressive breadth and covers key storefront/market workflows: catalog, samples, credits, directory listing, notary, and the task lifecycle. But each domain is shallow: there is no chain transaction broadcast, no task update/cancel/dispute, no AI-visibility history, and many verticals are a single tool with no follow-on operation. The surface is broad but not deeply complete.