Skip to main content
Glama
0xReisearch

REI Crypto MCP Server

by 0xReisearch

get_token_protocols

Retrieve token distribution across DeFi protocols by entering a token symbol to see holdings in each protocol.

Instructions

GET /api/tokenProtocols/{symbol}

Lists the amount of a certain token within all protocols.

Parameters:
    symbol: token slug (e.g., 'usdt')

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
symbolYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function for the 'get_token_protocols' tool. It is decorated with @mcp.tool() for registration and implements the logic to fetch data from the DefiLlama API endpoint /api/tokenProtocols/{symbol} using the make_request helper. The function signature and docstring define the input schema (symbol: str).
    @mcp.tool()
    async def get_token_protocols(symbol: str) -> str:
        """GET /api/tokenProtocols/{symbol}
        
        Lists the amount of a certain token within all protocols.
        
        Parameters:
            symbol: token slug (e.g., 'usdt')
        """
        result = await make_request('GET', f'/api/tokenProtocols/{symbol}')
        return str(result)
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 mentions the action ('lists') but doesn't describe key traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or the format of returned data. While it implies a safe read operation, the absence of detailed behavioral context is a significant gap.

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 followed by parameter details. It uses two sentences with no wasted words, making it efficient. However, the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the parameter explanation more seamlessly, but it remains clear and concise.

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 low complexity (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics adequately, but lacks behavioral details and usage guidelines. With no annotations and minimal context, it meets basic needs but leaves gaps in operational understanding.

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 meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage. It explains that the 'symbol' parameter is a 'token slug' and provides an example ('usdt'), clarifying the expected format. Since there's only one parameter and the schema lacks descriptions, this compensation is effective, though it could be more detailed (e.g., explaining slug conventions).

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: 'Lists the amount of a certain token within all protocols.' It specifies the verb ('lists'), resource ('amount of a certain token'), and scope ('within all protocols'), providing a concrete action. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_stablecoins' or 'get_chain_assets', which might also involve token data, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., 'get_protocols' or 'get_stablecoin_charts_all'), leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name and description alone. This lack of explicit context reduces its effectiveness.

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