DeFi protocol health: TVL, audit status, risk grade. Supports Jupiter, Raydium, Jito, Orca, Drift, Kamino, etc.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| protocol | Yes | Protocol name (e.g., jupiter, raydium, jito, orca, drift) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only lists the data fields (TVL, audit status, risk grade) but does not state that this is a read-only operation, or disclose any side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs. This is a significant gap for a tool that must be safely invoked.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('DeFi protocol health') followed by specific data points and supported protocols. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information.
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?
For a simple tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It specifies the return fields (TVL, audit status, risk grade) and enumerates supported protocols. It does not describe the exact output format or error handling, but for this complexity level, it is sufficient.
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 fully describes the single 'protocol' parameter with examples. The description adds 'Kamino' and 'etc.' to the list, which is marginal additional value. Since schema coverage is 100%, 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 identifies the tool's purpose as reporting DeFi protocol health metrics (TVL, audit status, risk grade) and lists supported protocols, which distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on yields, volume, or network stats. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'return', making it slightly less direct.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that for yields one should use sol_defi_yields or for volume sol_dex_volume, nor does it state any exclusion criteria. The context of siblings is present only in external context, not in the description.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of Solana: network stats, DeFi yields, DEX volumes, protocol health, validators, wallets, tokens, and transactions. Even potentially similar tools like sol_protocol_list and sol_protocol_health are clearly separated by purpose (ranking vs. health metrics).
All tools follow a strict sol_<resource> pattern with noun phrases (e.g., sol_bridge_flows, sol_token_risk). This is consistent and predictable, though not verb_noun, the pattern is uniform and readable.
12 tools is well within the ideal range for a Solana data oracle. Each tool covers a meaningful area without redundancy, and the count reflects the complexity of the domain without feeling bloated.
The toolset provides comprehensive coverage of Solana ecosystem monitoring: network health, DeFi stats, protocol risk, token risk, wallet analysis, and transaction monitoring. No obvious dead ends or missing critical operations for the purpose of an oracle server.