graph-lending-mcp

list_protocols

Read-only

List all supported lending protocols with live TVL, deposit/borrow totals, pool counts, and user counts. Filter by network or schema version.

Instructions

List all supported lending protocols with live TVL, deposit/borrow totals, pool counts, and user counts. Fans out to all registered subgraph endpoints. Optionally filter by network or schema version.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_protocols"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`network`	No	Network filter. Use these exact values: MAINNET (Ethereum), MATIC (Polygon), ARBITRUM_ONE (Arbitrum), AVALANCHE, BASE, BSC (BNB Chain), OPTIMISM, FANTOM, GNOSIS, BLAST, SCROLL, NEAR, HARMONY, MOONBEAM, MOONRIVER, AURORA, LINEA, ZKSYNC_ERA. Omit to use the default (first) deployment.
`schema_version`	No	Filter by schema version prefix, e.g. '3' for v3+ or '2.0' for v2.x

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedApr 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description adds value beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by stating it 'fans out to all registered subgraph endpoints' and lists live data fields, providing useful behavioral context without contradictions.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states the action and returned data, second adds fan-out and filtering options. No wasted words, front-loaded with purpose.

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?

The description specifies returned metrics (TVL, deposit/borrow totals, pool counts, user counts) without an output schema, providing sufficient context. Lacks mention of pagination or limits, but the tool lists all protocols so that's acceptable.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds meaning by specifying exact network values (e.g., MAINNET, MATIC) and the schema version prefix usage, going beyond the schema's minimal descriptions.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states 'List all supported lending protocols' with specific metrics (TVL, deposit/borrow totals, etc.), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_protocol' (single) or 'compare_protocols'.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explains optional filtering by network or schema version, implying when to narrow results. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context of sibling tools provides enough differentiation.

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