Skip to main content
Glama

buy_yields_protocol_sparklend

Paid. Live DeFi yields for sparklend: 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/sparklend.

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_sparklend"
  }
}

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 exist, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose useful traits: paid at $0.002 USDC on Base or Solana, no account or API key required, failed calls not charged, and the upstream data source. It omits whether results are cached/live-refreshed and what a payment failure or empty result looks like.

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-loaded with 'Paid.' followed by scope, data fields, price, payment rails, and endpoint in two terse sentences with no filler. The trailing URL is slightly redundant with tool metadata 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 listing endpoint with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives scope, fields returned, cost, and endpoint. The main gap is the response shape (one row per pool with chain/pool identifiers) and how sort/limit interact with the default TVL floor.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents sort, limit, and min_tvl_usd. The description only names the output fields (APY, TVL, 7d change) without adding meaning to the sort/limit/min-TVL parameters, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description names the specific resource (sparklend protocol pools across chains) and enumerates the returned fields: APY, TVL, 7d APY change, plus the data source (DefiLlama). An agent can distinguish it from buy_yields_chain_* and buy_yields_token_* by the protocol scope, though no sibling is named 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 by the scope word 'protocol' – the description never says when to prefer this over buy_yields_chain_base or buy_yields_token_usdc, nor any precondition for calling. An agent must infer the protocol-vs-chain-vs-token distinction from the tool name.

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