Skip to main content
Glama
0xReisearch

REI Crypto MCP Server

by 0xReisearch

get_etf_overview

Retrieve Bitcoin ETF data including assets under management, pricing, and fee structures for investment analysis.

Instructions

GET /etfs/overview

Get BTC ETFs and their metrics (aum, price, fees...).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function for the 'get_etf_overview' tool, decorated with @mcp.tool() which also handles registration and schema inference from docstring and types. It calls the shared make_request helper to fetch data from DefiLlama's /etfs/overview endpoint.
    @mcp.tool()
    async def get_etf_overview() -> str:
        """GET /etfs/overview
        
        Get BTC ETFs and their metrics (aum, price, fees...).
        """
        result = await make_request('GET', '/etfs/overview')
        return str(result)
  • Shared utility function used by the get_etf_overview tool (and others) to perform HTTP requests to the DefiLlama API.
    async def make_request(method: str, endpoint: str, params: Optional[Dict[str, Any]] = None) -> Any:
        """Make a request to the DefiLlama API."""
        try:
            response = await client.request(method, endpoint, params=params)
            response.raise_for_status()
            return response.json()
        except Exception as e:
            return f"Error: {str(e)}"
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a GET operation (implying read-only) and describes the type of data returned, but lacks critical information about rate limits, authentication requirements, response format, pagination, or error conditions. For a data retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 efficiently structured with the HTTP method first, followed by a clear purpose statement. Both sentences earn their place - the first establishes the endpoint, the second specifies the data returned. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more polished.

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 has zero parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description provides adequate basic information about what data is retrieved. However, with no annotations and multiple sibling tools in the same domain, it should provide more context about when to choose this specific ETF overview tool versus alternatives.

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 tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing non-existent parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools where the schema already fully documents the absence of inputs.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('BTC ETFs and their metrics') with specific examples (aum, price, fees). It distinguishes from sibling 'get_etf_history' by focusing on current overview rather than historical data. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_etf_overview_eth' which appears to be an Ethereum-specific variant.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_etf_history' or 'get_etf_overview_eth'. It mentions what data is returned but gives no context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or limitations compared to sibling tools.

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