defi_yieldsFind DeFi yield pools with TVL ≥ $10m, compare APY and base/reward splits, assess IL risk, and filter by chain, project, or stablecoin-only status.
Top DeFi yield pools (TVL ≥ $10m) with APY, base/reward split and IL risk (DefiLlama nightly). Filter by chain, project, stablecoin-only; sort by tvl or apy.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sort | No | ||
| chain | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| project | No | ||
| minTvlUsd | No | ||
| stablecoinOnly | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: data provenance and freshness (DefiLlama, nightly cadence) and the default TVL floor of $10m, which materially affects what the agent will receive.
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?
A tight, front-loaded pair of sentences that leads with the resource and scope before listing capabilities. No filler, though the second clause mixes usage hints with return fields in a slightly dense semicolon list.
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-only, open-world data-retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers source, scope, returned fields and main filters adequately. Only the two undocumented filter parameters (limit, minTvlUsd bounds) keep it from being 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?
With 0% schema description coverage the description must carry the parameter burden. It documents chain, project, stablecoinOnly and both sort enum values, and hints at the TVL threshold behind minTvlUsd, but leaves limit and the exact minTvlUsd semantics undocumented.
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 names a specific resource (top DeFi yield pools), its scope (TVL ≥ $10m), the fields returned (APY, base/reward split, IL risk) and the data source (DefiLlama nightly). This clearly identifies the tool's job but never explicitly differentiates it from adjacent DeFi-data siblings like top_defi_protocols, chains_tvl or protocol_fees.
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?
It tells the agent what can be filtered (chain, project, stablecoin-only) and how to sort (tvl or apy), which implies the usage contexts. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool routing, so guidance remains implicit rather than actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.