Skip to main content
Glama

buy_yields_protocol_midas-rwa

Paid. Live DeFi yields for midas-rwa: 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/midas-rwa.

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_midas-rwa"
  }
}

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

A4/5.0
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 that the call is paid, the exact price ($0.002 USDC), accepted payment chains (Base or Solana), that no account or API key is needed, and that failed calls are not charged. It does not describe response shape or rate limits, which keeps it short of a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with 'Paid.' and then the content, payment, and access terms in tight sentences; the endpoint URL is the only extra and is operationally relevant. Nothing is padded.

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 three-optional-parameter read endpoint with no output schema, the description covers data source, returned fields, cost, and payment mechanics. It stops short of describing pagination or the full row shape, which an agent would still have to discover at call time.

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 adds no meaning about default filtering behavior or how sorting interacts with the min_tvl_usd threshold; baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: live DeFi yields for the midas-rwa protocol, listing the returned metrics (APY, TVL, 7d APY change) and the data source (DefiLlama). An agent can immediately tell this is the protocol-level yields feed rather than a chain-level or token-level one.

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 description makes clear what the tool returns, so use is implied, but it never states when to prefer it over siblings such as buy_yields_chain_* or other buy_yields_protocol_* endpoints (e.g., whether it covers all chains for this protocol or one). No exclusions or decision rules are given.

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