Compare DeFi yields across all Solana protocols. Filter by TVL and category.
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": "sol_defi_yields"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No | Filter keyword (e.g., stablecoin, sol, jito) | |
| min_tvl_usd | No | Minimum pool TVL (default: 100000) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool filters by TVL and category and covers all protocols, but does not describe output format, sorting, or any side effects. Since the tool is a read-only query by nature, these omissions are not severe, but the description lacks detail about what a 'comparison' actually returns.
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 two concise sentences that front-load the core action ('Compare DeFi yields across all Solana protocols') and then summarize the filtering options. There is no redundant or filler content, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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 only two optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides basic functionality but lacks detail on the return structure or how results are presented. An agent might need to know the response fields (e.g., protocol name, APY, TVL) to invoke the tool correctly, but the description stays at a high level. It is adequate for a simple query tool but not fully complete.
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 already provides full descriptions for both parameters ('Filter keyword' and 'Minimum pool TVL' with a default), giving 100% coverage. The description merely restates that you can filter by TVL and category, adding no additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema already documents.
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 compares DeFi yields across all Solana protocols, using the specific verb 'compare' and identifying the resource (DeFi yields). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sol_dex_volume or sol_network_stats, which focus on different metrics.
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 first sentence provides clear context for when to use this tool: to compare yields across Solana protocols. It implies the use case effectively and, since no sibling tool appears to offer yield comparison, there are no exclusions or alternatives to mention. The description could be more explicit about not using it for other metrics, but the context is unambiguous.
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.