Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Wicked MCP server

Wicked MCP server

by WickedAPI
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussions(1)Admin
TypeScript
Hybrid

protocol_health_score

Read-onlyIdempotent

Assess a single protocol's health score before integration using GitHub activity, TVL trend, treasury components, source details, and score history.

Instructions

[Protocol Health Oracle] Latest health score for one protocol: components (GitHub activity, TVL trend, treasury), source details, and score history.

Use when you are vetting one protocol before integrating it and want GitHub activity, TVL trend and treasury components. Not for a ranking (use protocol_health_scoreboard) or token contract risk (use token_risk).

Behavior: read-only. Priced via x402 (USDC on Base) or free with WICKEDAPI_API_KEY; with neither, you get HTTP 402 with the decoded price in payment_required (a price quote, not a failure).

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": {
      "slug": "<slug>"
    },
    "name": "protocol_health_score"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slugYesRequired (path). The protocol's defillama_slug, e.g. lido.
historyNoOptional. Number of historical scores to include (default 10, max 100).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses the monetization model (x402 USDC on Base, free with WICKEDAPI_API_KEY) and, critically, that an unauthenticated call returns HTTP 402 with the decoded price in payment_required rather than being a failure. That failure-mode context is exactly the kind of behavior an agent cannot get from annotations and would otherwise misread as an error.

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?

Three short, labeled blocks — purpose, routing, behavior — with the primary purpose front-loaded. Every sentence carries distinct information: what it returns, when to use it, when not to, and how payment works.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned components and score history, and it fully explains the payment/auth failure path. For a two-parameter read tool, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%, with slug and history fully documented (default 10, max 100), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description mentions "score history" as a return component but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Latest health score for one protocol") and enumerates the returned components (GitHub activity, TVL trend, treasury, source details, score history). It also names the two adjacent-but-different siblings, protocol_health_scoreboard and token_risk, so an agent can disambiguate without opening schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives an explicit usage trigger ("when you are vetting one protocol before integrating it") and explicit exclusions with the correct alternatives: ranking → protocol_health_scoreboard, token contract risk → token_risk. No inference required from the agent.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools