Skip to main content
Glama

buy_yields_token_usdd

Paid. Where to earn yield on USDD: live pools holding USDD across protocols and chains, APY and TVL (DefiLlama data). $0.005 USDC on Base or Solana. No account, no API key. Failed calls not charged. URL https://southpow.media/v1/yields/token/usdd.

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_usdd"
  }
}

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

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that the call is paid ($0.005 USDC on Base or Solana), requires no account or API key, and that failed calls are not charged. It stops short of describing the response shape or rate limits, which is a minor gap for a read-only data endpoint.

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 payment status, then purpose, then pricing and access terms in tight sentences with no filler. The trailing URL is useful provenance but slightly interrupts the flow.

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-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema paid endpoint, the description covers purpose, cost, payment rails, and failure charging, which is what an agent needs to decide and invoke. Only return-format expectations are left unstated, and those are partially inferable from the APY/TVL mention.

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 sort, limit, and min_tvl_usd are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning such as default behavior or sorting implications beyond what the schema states, 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 resource with scope: live yield pools holding USDD across protocols and chains, with APY and TVL data from DefiLlama. This clearly separates it from the chain-scoped (buy_yields_chain_*) and protocol-scoped (buy_yields_protocol_*) siblings, since this one is token-scoped.

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 implied by the purpose ('where to earn yield on USDD'), and payment mechanics are spelled out, but the description never says when to prefer this over a chain or protocol sibling, nor any exclusions. An agent can infer the use case but gets no routing 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