Wicked MCP server

protocol_health_scoreboard

Read-onlyIdempotent

Rank every tracked DeFi protocol by health score and verdict, returning only name, score, and verdict for quick public comparison. Filter by category or minimum TVL and paginate results.

Instructions

[Protocol Health Oracle] Public teaser: protocol name, score, and verdict only (no components/history) across the full tracked universe — auto-ingested from DefiLlama (TVL > $1M) plus curated protocols.

Use when you want the free public ranking of every tracked DeFi protocol: name, score and verdict only. Not for the component breakdown for one protocol (use protocol_health_score).

Behavior: read-only and free; no key or payment needed.

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": "protocol_health_scoreboard"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Optional. Rows to return (default 100, max 2000).
`offset`	No	Optional. Pagination offset (default 0).
`min_tvl`	No	Optional. Only protocols with TVL >= this USD amount.
`category`	No	Optional. Filter by DefiLlama category, e.g. "Liquid Staking".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.1Oct 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: the data provenance (DefiLlama auto-ingest with TVL > $1M plus curated protocols) and the commercial terms ('free; no key or payment needed'), which the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint flags do not convey. It does not cover pagination behavior or the practical effect of limit/offset on a large universe, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the payload scope, then usage, then behavior, with zero filler sentences. The bracketed '[Protocol Health Oracle] Public teaser:' prefix and section labels add slight overhead but aid scanning rather than obscuring.

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 no-required-param list tool with no output schema, the description still tells the agent exactly what comes back (name, score, verdict only) and what does not. Pagination over a potentially large universe is left to the schema, which is a minor but real gap for a 2000-row-capable endpoint.

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 limit, offset, min_tvl, and category are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of the TVL > $1M ingest threshold gives useful background for min_tvl but adds no format or semantics beyond what the schema states, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (scoreboard of protocol health scores) and precisely bounds the payload: 'protocol name, score, and verdict only (no components/history)'. It explicitly contrasts with the sibling that returns the detailed breakdown, so an agent can distinguish it from protocol_health_score without opening either schema.

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 when-to-use ('free public ranking of every tracked DeFi protocol') and an explicit when-not with the named alternative ('Not for the component breakdown for one protocol (use protocol_health_score)'). The routing decision is fully specified rather than implied.

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

Deploy Server