Snapshot of one DeFi protocol by DefiLlama slug: TVL by chain, category, 1d/7d change, audits, refreshed every 5 minutes from DefiLlama's protocol summary. Price $0.01 per call, paid with USDC over x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | DefiLlama protocol slug, e.g. aave-v3 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the data source (DefiLlama protocol summary), a 5-minute refresh interval, and the $0.01 cost paid via USDC/x402, but it does not state whether the call is read-only, what auth is required, or what happens on invalid slugs. 'Snapshot' implies non-mutating but is not explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two compact sentences front-load the purpose and data fields, then add operational details (refresh, cost, payment). No filler or redundant repetition of schema information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main data returned, the source and freshness, and the pricing/payment model. It does not specify return format or error handling, but these are less critical given the simplicity and the enumeration of output fields.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the slug property already includes its pattern and an example (aave-v3). The tool description only reuses the notion of 'by slug' without adding new meaning about the parameter's possible values or behavior, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action (Snapshot) and resource (one DeFi protocol by DefiLlama slug), and enumerates the returned data (TVL by chain, category, 1d/7d change, audits). However, it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools such as defi_yields, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description conveys usage context by describing the exact data the tool returns and its freshness, implying it is for obtaining a protocol snapshot from DefiLlama. It lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over defi_yields or the scrape_* siblings, and gives no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools are distinct, but scrape_markdown and scrape_summary overlap heavily, and defi_yields and yield_report both concern yield data with only presentation differences. Descriptions help clarify, but selection could still be ambiguous.
Names are descriptive but follow mixed conventions: scrape_markdown and scrape_summary are verb-first, while claim_check, token_check, defi_protocol, defi_yields, and yield_report are noun-oriented. No clear consistent verb_noun pattern across the set.
Seven tools is a reasonable, focused set for a multi-domain data service covering claims, DeFi, scraping, and token checks. It is neither too sparse nor bloated.
The surface covers the apparent domains well, with both raw data and summary variants for key areas. Minor gaps exist such as no obvious listing/search endpoint for DeFi protocols, but the core workflows are supported.