Get detailed information about a DeFi protocol including TVL, vault count, versions, auditors, and security incidents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| protocolId | Yes | Protocol ID (e.g. morpho, aave, aave-v4, yearn, beefy, spark, compound, uniswap, nest, maple, kamino) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the description is transparent about what data is returned (TVL, vault count, versions, auditors, security incidents). It does not mention side effects or error cases, but for a straightforward information retrieval tool, this is sufficient.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the purpose and lists relevant data points. Every word adds value, with no redundant or filler content.
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 simple one-parameter schema and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what information will be returned without needing to describe return formatting. It could mention response structure, but the listed data points give enough context for an agent to understand the tool's capability.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the parameter protocolId already includes a description with examples (e.g., morpho, aave, yearn). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 gets detailed information about a DeFi protocol, listing specific content (TVL, vault count, versions, auditors, security incidents). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_vault or get_curator_info by focusing on protocol-level data, but does not explicitly name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.
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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when needing protocol-level info such as TVL or security incidents. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative sibling tools, so there are no exclusions or alternative guidance.
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 a specific resource and action, but vault discovery/filtering overlaps slightly between search_vaults and find_safest_vaults, and get_market/list_markets could confuse agents. The descriptions include explicit disambiguation notes, which mitigates most misselection risk.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: get_, list_, search_, compare_, explain_, find_. The consistency makes the tool surface predictable and easy for an agent to navigate.
Thirteen tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range and matches the server's broad but focused purpose: vault analytics, market data, risk breakdowns, and ecosystem lookups. No tool feels redundant or purely decorative.
The read-only analytics domain is well covered: vault lookup, search, comparison, risk breakdown, incidents, market overview, market events, protocol info, and curator info are all present. The only notable gap is the lack of direct discovery/list endpoints for protocols and curators, though vaults can often be used as an entry point.
