Skip to main content
Glama

buy_yields_token_usdy

Paid. Where to earn yield on USDY: live pools holding USDY 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/usdy.

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_usdy"
  }
}

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 burden and does well: it discloses that the call is paid ($0.005 USDC on Base or Solana), requires no account or API key, that failed calls are not charged, and that data originates from DefiLlama. It does not cover rate limits, auth/payment failure behavior, or response shape, which keeps it below 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-loads the critical 'Paid.' flag, then purpose, then data source, then pricing/access constraints, then the endpoint URL. Dense telegraphic phrasing with no sentence that fails to earn its place.

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 no-output-schema, zero-required-param read tool, the description covers what the data is, where it comes from, and the full payment/access model. Minor gap: no indication of result shape beyond 'APY and TVL' or what an empty result means.

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% and all three parameters (sort, limit, min_tvl_usd) already document their meaning and defaults. The description adds no parameter context beyond noting that APY and TVL are returned, so the 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+resource: live yield pools holding USDY across protocols and chains, returning APY and TVL from DefiLlama. The token-scoped framing distinguishes it from the chain_*, protocol_*, and stablecoins yield siblings without needing to name them.

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 'where to earn yield on USDY' framing implies the use case, and payment mechanics are spelled out, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no alternative named (e.g., a different token's yields tool or the broader stablecoins tool). Selection among ~60 token-specific yield tools is left to inference from the 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