Get 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 |
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?
The description states the tool returns protocols sorted by TVL, indicating a read-only operation. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it lacks details on rate limits, pagination, or failure modes.
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 sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the primary purpose and data source, the second lists filtering capabilities. Information is front-loaded and easy to parse.
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, the description gives a basic expectation ('returns top protocols sorted by TVL') and covers all parameters. It could be enhanced by mentioning that the result list is limited by the 'limit' parameter, but overall it's sufficient for an agent to use correctly.
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 adds value by grouping parameters (filter vs detail) and providing usage context (e.g., slug for single protocol detail, limit default) that the schema lacks.
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 'Get DeFi protocol TVL data from DefiLlama' with a specific resource (protocols) and action (get TVL). It also distinguishes from siblings by focusing on protocols versus chains or yields.
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 explicitly mentions filtering options (chain, minimum TVL, single protocol by slug) which helps guide usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives from the sibling list.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of DeFi data: chain TVL, protocol TVL, and yield pools, with no overlapping functionality.
All tools follow a consistent 'get_<domain>' pattern, making the tool names predictable and easy to understand.
Three tools is a focused and appropriate set for querying DeFi data, covering key metrics without unnecessary bloat.
The tools cover the main DeFi data categories (chain TVL, protocol TVL, yield pools), though additional features like historical comparisons or token details could enhance completeness.