Tanod MCP server

chainpeek: protocol fees and revenue over 24 hours, 7 days, 30 days, 1 year and all time (cached DefiLlama data)

get_protocol_fees

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch a protocol's fees and revenue in USD across 24h, 7d, 30d, 1y, and all time from cached DefiLlama data, including changes and the revenue-to-fees ratio.

Instructions

chainpeek: Get protocol fees and revenue. For TVL use get_protocol_tvl. Returns a protocol's fees and revenue in USD over 24 hours, 7 days, 30 days, 1 year and all time, the change, the revenue-to-fees ratio and DefiLlama's definitions, from Tanod's cache of DefiLlama data. Cached DefiLlama data (refreshed every few hours), never live; as_of shows its age; revenue is DefiLlama's definition (see methodology); an unknown protocol is a 422 with suggestions and a missing or over-2-day-old cache a 503 (neither charged). Informational only. Typically under 1 s (a local cache read). Price: USD 0.002. Free: 10 chain reads per IP per UTC day. Docs: https://tanod.dev/learn/defi-data-api.html

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`protocol`	Yes	Protocol (or chain) name or slug, e.g. aave, uniswap, lido, ethereum (a parent such as aave sums its versions). An unknown name is a 422 with suggestions.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No
`as_of`	No
`error`	No	Only on an error result: an object {code, message}, or the reason string of an x402 PaymentRequired object.
`stale`	No
`source`	No
`protocol`	No
`other_matches`	No
`cache_age_hours`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Oct 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description adds substantial context beyond them: cached (never live), refresh cadence, `as_of` staleness signal, 422 with suggestions for unknown protocols, 503 for missing/stale cache, neither charged, sub-1s latency, price and free tier.

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-loads what the tool does before the error/caching/pricing clauses, and each clause carries real information. It is dense and slightly run-on, but not padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description still covers caching semantics, error modes, latency, and cost, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and the single `protocol` parameter already documents name/slug and parent-summing behavior. The description largely repeats this (including the 422-on-unknown note), adding little beyond the schema; baseline 3 is 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 and resource (get a protocol's fees and revenue) and explicitly routes the sibling case away: 'For TVL use get_protocol_tvl.' An agent can distinguish this from the nearest sibling 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 Guidelines4/5

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

Names the alternative (get_protocol_tvl) and the condition that selects it, and labels the tool 'Informational only.' No coverage of when not to use it beyond the TVL case, but the critical routing decision is explicit.

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

Deploy Server