Skip to main content
Glama
deenesjakoruzh
0xReisearch

REI Crypto MCP Server

by 0xReisearch
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Hybrid

get_bridge_volume

Retrieve historical bridge volume data for specific chains or across all networks to analyze cross-chain transaction patterns and bridge usage metrics.

Instructions

GET /bridgevolume/{chain}

Get historical volumes for a bridge, chain, or bridge on a particular chain.

Parameters:
    chain: chain slug (e.g., 'Ethereum') or 'all' for volume on all chains
    id: bridge ID (optional, can be retrieved from /bridges)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainYes
idNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Implementation Reference

  • defillama_server.py:530-547 (handler)
    The handler function decorated with @mcp.tool() that implements the get_bridge_volume tool by calling the DefiLlama API endpoint /bridgevolume/{chain}.
    @mcp.tool()
async def get_bridge_volume(
    chain: str,
    id: Optional[int] = None
) -> str:
    """GET /bridgevolume/{chain}
    
    Get historical volumes for a bridge, chain, or bridge on a particular chain.
    
    Parameters:
        chain: chain slug (e.g., 'Ethereum') or 'all' for volume on all chains
        id: bridge ID (optional, can be retrieved from /bridges)
    """
    params = {}
    if id is not None:
        params['id'] = id
    result = await make_request('GET', f'/bridgevolume/{chain}', params)
    return str(result)
  • defillama_server.py:530-530 (registration)
    The @mcp.tool() decorator registers the get_bridge_volume function as an MCP tool.
    @mcp.tool()

Tool Definition Quality

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves historical volumes, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or data freshness. While it hints at the scope ('historical volumes'), it lacks details on time ranges, data formats, or pagination, which are critical for an agent to use it effectively.

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?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose in the first sentence. The parameter explanations are concise and directly relevant. There's no unnecessary fluff, and the structure (purpose followed by parameters) is logical. However, it could be slightly more polished by integrating the parameter details more seamlessly into the narrative.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and parameters well, but lacks behavioral context like rate limits or error handling. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values, but it should still address usage nuances and potential constraints to be fully adequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% schema description coverage. It explains that 'chain' is a 'chain slug (e.g., 'Ethereum') or 'all' for volume on all chains' and that 'id' is an 'optional' 'bridge ID' that 'can be retrieved from /bridges'. This clarifies the parameter roles, formats, and relationships, compensating well for the schema's lack of descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get historical volumes for a bridge, chain, or bridge on a particular chain.' It specifies the verb ('Get historical volumes') and resource ('bridge, chain, or bridge on a particular chain'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_bridge_day_stats' or 'get_bridge_transactions', which might also involve bridge-related data retrieval.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides minimal guidance on when to use this tool. It mentions that 'id' is optional and can be retrieved from '/bridges', but offers no explicit advice on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_bridge_day_stats' or 'get_bridge_transactions'. There's no mention of specific use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/0xReisearch/crypto-mcp-beta'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server