feegate-yield-mcp

get_project_yields

Retrieve all yield pools for a DeFi protocol across every chain, ranked by TVL, to compare pool liquidity and returns in one call.

Instructions

Get all yield pools of one DeFi project/protocol (e.g. "aave-v3", "curve-dex"), across all chains, ranked by TVL.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "project": "<project>"
    },
    "name": "get_project_yields"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Max pools to return (1-50, default 15).
`project`	Yes	Project slug as used by DefiLlama, e.g. "aave-v3".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that results span all chains and are ranked by TVL, but it does not cover read-only safety, permissions, pagination behavior, invalid-project handling, or response shape.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. The scope, chain coverage, and ranking behavior are all stated efficiently.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, the description gives enough context to select and invoke it correctly: project scope, cross-chain behavior, ranking, and examples. Remaining gaps are minor and mostly concern return format or pagination, which are not critical here.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters, including the project slug format and limit range. The description reinforces the project-slug concept with examples but adds little parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: get yield pools for one DeFi project/protocol, across all chains, ranked by TVL. This clearly distinguishes it from a broad pool-listing tool, though it does not explicitly name the sibling get_pools as the alternative.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the project-scoped phrasing and the example slugs, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus get_pools or list_chains. The description does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or when-not-to-use conditions.

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

Deploy Server