Skip to main content
Glama

buy_yields_token_jitosol

Paid. Where to earn yield on JITOSOL: live pools holding JITOSOL across protocols and chains, APY and TVL (DefiLlama data). $0.002 USDC on Base or Solana. No account, no API key. Failed calls not charged. URL https://southpow.media/v1/yields/token/jitosol.

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_token_jitosol"
  }
}

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 still discloses the important operational traits: it is a paid call, priced at $0.002 USDC payable on Base or Solana, requires no account or API key, and failed calls are not charged. It also names the upstream data source (DefiLlama). The main gap is return-shape/pagination behavior.

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 the 'Paid.' marker and then packs data scope, cost, payment options and auth requirements into two efficient sentences. The explicit URL is arguably redundant for an MCP-invoked tool but is not harmful.

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 simple read-only list endpoint with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers cost, auth, data source and the returned fields. It is complete enough to call correctly; only the response structure is left implicit.

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 fully documented in the schema, including defaults. The description adds no extra semantics beyond what structured fields already provide, which is the baseline case.

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 pools holding JITOSOL, across protocols and chains, with APY and TVL from DefiLlama. An agent can distinguish this from buy_yields_token_* siblings for other assets. It stops short of naming the chain-level or protocol-level alternatives, so it misses the top band for sibling differentiation.

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 phrase 'Where to earn yield on JITOSOL' implies the use case, and cost ($0.002) plus payment chains are stated, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus buy_yields_chain_solana or buy_yields_protocol_jito-liquid-staking 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