Skip to main content
Glama

buy_yields_protocol_uniswap-v3

Paid. Live DeFi yields for uniswap-v3: its pools across chains with APY, TVL, 7d APY change (DefiLlama data). $0.01 USDC on Base or Solana. No account, no API key. Failed calls not charged. URL https://southpow.media/v1/yields/protocol/uniswap-v3.

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_uniswap-v3"
  }
}

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

A3.8/5.0
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 a decent job: it discloses paid pricing ($0.01 USDC on Base or Solana), no account or API key required, and that failed calls are not charged. It omits rate limits and whether responses are paginated or capped beyond the limit parameter.

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-loads the paid flag, then the purpose, then pricing and access constraints. Every sentence carries actionable information (cost, payment chains, failure policy, endpoint), with no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description names the returned fields (APY, TVL, 7d APY change) and the data source (DefiLlama), which is close to the level of detail an agent needs. It stops short of describing response shape or chain coverage per pool, a minor gap for a simple list tool.

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 parameter-level detail (e.g., what default sort ordering means across chains, or how min_tvl_usd interacts with cross-chain pools), so 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 uniswap-v3 pools across chains) and enumerates the returned fields: APY, TVL, 7d APY change. The protocol scoping makes it distinguishable from chain-level, token-level, and other protocol yield siblings without needing the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to `buy_yields_chain_*`, `buy_yields_token_*`, or the uniswap-v2/v4 variants. The only usage information is commercial (price, no account needed), which tells the agent about cost, not applicability.

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