Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
bca-mcp

bca-mcp

by blockchainacademics
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

compare_protocols

Compare crypto protocols side-by-side using TVL, fees, tokenomics, team, audits, and risk metrics. Pro tier analysis included.

Instructions

Side-by-side comparison: TVL, fees, tokenomics, team, audits, risk. Pro tier.

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": {
      "entity_slugs": "<entity_slugs>"
    },
    "name": "compare_protocols"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
entity_slugsYesComma-separated entity slugs (kebab-case).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. Only states it does a side-by-side comparison but omits details like output format, number of protocols supported, rate limits, or authentication requirements. Minimal transparency.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Description is very short and front-loaded, but it's too terse. It lacks important context that could be added without becoming verbose. Not quite concise; it's under-specified.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more details like what the comparison output includes, limits on number of protocols, or response structure. Currently incomplete for complex usage.

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 covers 100% of parameters with description for 'entity_slugs'. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's 'Comma-separated entity slugs (kebab-case)'. Baseline score of 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?

Description clearly states the tool compares protocols side-by-side on specific metrics (TVL, fees, tokenomics, etc.) and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_defi_protocol' or 'get_entity' by focusing on comparison.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Mentioning 'Pro tier' hints at access level but doesn't help in tool selection. No exclusions or when-not-to-use context.

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