Skip to main content
Glama

buy_yields_protocol_bitwise-uscc

Paid. Live DeFi yields for bitwise-uscc: its pools across chains with 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/protocol/bitwise-uscc.

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_protocol_bitwise-uscc"
  }
}

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

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations, so the description must carry the full load, and it does disclose the paid nature ($0.002 USDC on Base or Solana), no account/API key requirement, and that failed calls are not charged — meaningful context. It omits rate limits, latency, and what a paid but empty result looks like for a protocol with no pools.

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?

Front-loads 'Paid.' then the capability, then cost, auth, and endpoint in short clauses with no filler. The trailing raw URL is somewhat mechanical but earns its place for an agent that must construct a call.

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 no-parameter-required paid read tool, the description covers cost, payment options, auth posture, billing failure behavior, and the returned data fields, which roughly substitutes for the absent output schema. Missing pagination/error semantics are minor against that coverage.

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 defaults and ranges are already documented. The description adds no syntax, unit, or interaction detail beyond that baseline.

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?

Names the specific resource (live DeFi yields for the bitwise-uscc protocol, pools across chains) and enumerates the returned fields (APY, TVL, 7d APY change) plus the DefiLlama source. The protocol scoping in the tool name distinguishes it from the chain_* and token_* siblings, but the description itself never states that differentiation explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied via the protocol scope; the description never says when to pick this over buy_yields_chain_* or buy_yields_token_* siblings. Pricing and payment rail info give the agent preconditions to consider, but no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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