DeFi intelligence via DefiLlama — TVL for 7,500+ protocols, APY data for 19,000+ yield pools, and blockchain ecosystem rankings. Filter by chain, project, token, or minimum APY.
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 3.8/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct data type: chain TVL, protocol TVL, and yield pools. No overlap in functionality.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_chain_tvl, get_defi_protocols, get_yield_pools) with clear naming.
3 tools is appropriate for a focused DeFi intelligence server, covering the core data needs without being excessive.
Covers chain TVL, protocol TVL, and yield pools. Minor gaps exist (e.g., individual token data or historical comparisons across tools) but the set is functional for its purpose.
get_chain_tvlAInspectGet blockchain ecosystem TVL data. Returns all chains ranked by TVL, or TVL history for a specific chain.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | No | Chain name for history (e.g. Ethereum, BSC, Solana). Omit for all chains. | |
| limit | No | History data points (default 10, max 30) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly implies a read operation but does not explicitly state that the tool is non-destructive or read-only. A brief note on safety would enhance transparency, but the current description is not misleading.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no unnecessary words or filler. It efficiently conveys the tool's functionality without being overly terse.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (two optional params, no output schema), the description covers the main use cases. However, it lacks details about the return format (e.g., structure of ranked list or historical data points), which would improve completeness for an agent.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's parameter info ('Omit for all chains' and history mode) largely repeats the schema descriptions. It adds no significant new meaning beyond clarifying the two modes, which is already evident from the schema.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves blockchain ecosystem TVL data, specifying two modes: all chains ranked by TVL or history for a specific chain. The verb 'Get' and resource 'blockchain ecosystem TVL data' are precise, and the tool is well-differentiated from siblings like get_defi_protocols and get_yield_pools.
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 implies usage for chain-level TVL queries but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools. Although the context makes the purpose clear, explicit guidance on when to use this versus get_defi_protocols or get_yield_pools would improve clarity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_defi_protocolsAInspectGet DeFi protocol TVL data from DefiLlama. Returns top protocols sorted by Total Value Locked. Filter by chain, minimum TVL, or get a single protocol by slug.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | No | Single protocol slug for detail (e.g. aave, uniswap, lido) | |
| chain | No | Filter by blockchain (ethereum, bsc, solana, arbitrum, etc.) | |
| limit | No | Number of results (default 20, max 100) | |
| min_tvl | No | Minimum TVL in USD |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description discloses basic behavior (sorting by TVL, filtering), but lacks details on rate limits, pagination, data freshness, authentication, or side effects. Adequate but insufficient for full transparency.
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 concise sentences front-load the purpose and key features. No redundant information; every word earns its place.
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?
With no output schema and 4 parameters, the description covers main functionality but omits output format, sorting direction, limit max, and error handling. Adequate for basic use but not fully complete.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description rephrases schema fields without adding significant new meaning beyond 'filter by chain, minimum TVL, or get a single protocol by slug.' Does not enhance parameter understanding beyond schema.
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?
Description clearly states it retrieves DeFi protocol TVL data from DefiLlama, returns top protocols sorted by TVL, and offers filtering by chain, minimum TVL, or single protocol by slug. This is specific and distinguishes from siblings (get_chain_tvl, get_yield_pools).
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?
Description implies usage for protocol-level TVL queries, but does not explicitly contrast with siblings or state when not to use. Clear context but lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_yield_poolsAInspectGet DeFi yield and APY pool data from DefiLlama. Filter from 19,000+ pools by chain, project, token symbol, or minimum APY.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | No | Blockchain filter (ethereum, bsc, solana, etc.) | |
| limit | No | Number of results (default 20, max 50) | |
| symbol | No | Token symbol filter (e.g. USDC, ETH, BTC) | |
| min_apy | No | Minimum APY percentage | |
| min_tvl | No | Minimum pool TVL in USD | |
| project | No | Protocol name (e.g. aave, compound, curve) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It indicates a read-only operation ('Get') and mentions data source and pool count, but lacks details on data freshness, rate limits, pagination behavior, or error handling. Adequate but not thorough.
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?
Single sentence with no wasted words. Purpose and key capability (filtering) are front-loaded. Highly efficient.
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 read tool with 6 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks detail on response format or behavior when filters yield no results. Given sibling tools exist, the description could better position this tool relative to them.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description lists filter dimensions (chain, project, token symbol, APY) that align with schema, but adds minimal new information beyond the parameter descriptions. It provides context (19000+ pools) but no deeper semantics.
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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'DeFi yield and APY pool data from DefiLlama'. It highlights filtering across 19,000+ pools, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on chain TVL or protocol listings.
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 implies usage when pool data is needed but does not explicitly state when to avoid or when alternatives are more appropriate. No contrast with sibling tools or exclusion criteria are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
