Skip to main content
Glama

buy_yields_chain_bsc

Paid. Live DeFi yields on BSC: top pools by TVL or APY with base/reward APY, TVL, 7d APY change (DefiLlama data). $0.002 USDC on Base or Solana. No account, no API key. Failed calls not charged. URL https://southpow.media/v1/yields/chain/bsc.

Tool call template

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": "buy_yields_chain_bsc"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sortNotvl (default) or apy
limitNoRows, 1-100 (default 20)
min_tvl_usdNoMinimum pool TVL in USD (default 100000)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the price ($0.002 USDC), accepted payment chains (Base, Solana), that no account or API key is needed, and that failed calls are not charged. It omits anything about rate limits or pagination, which keeps it below 5.

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?

Two dense sentences that front-load the data description before payment and access details, with zero filler. The endpoint URL is arguably redundant but harmless.

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?

For a 3-optional-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description names the returned metrics (base/reward APY, TVL, 7d APY change) and the data source, which substitutes for the missing output schema. Only non-BSC routing guidance 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 sort, limit, and min_tvl_usd are already documented in the schema. The description only restates that ranking is by TVL or APY and adds no format nuance, which matches the baseline for full 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?

States a specific resource and scope: live DeFi yield pools on BSC, ranked by TVL or APY, with named fields (base/reward APY, TVL, 7d change) and data source. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as buy_yields_protocol_* or buy_tvl_bsc, 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.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The chain scope (BSC) and sort options imply when the tool applies, and 'Paid' warns that a call costs money. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no pointer to buy_yields_chain_* for other chains or buy_yields_protocol_* for protocol-level views.

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.

Resources