Skip to main content
Glama
domechn

Merkl MCP Server

by domechn

Aggregate Field

opportunities-aggregate

Aggregate Merkl opportunities by a chosen field to summarize counts by chain, status, type, action, tokens, tags, or protocols, with filters for APR, TVL, and campaigns.

Instructions

GET /v4/opportunities/aggregate/{field}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoFilter by name
tagsNoFilter by tag
testNoInclude opportunities with test campaigns
typeNoA comma separated list of Opportunity type
fieldYesField to aggregate on (e.g. chainId, status, type, action, tokens, tags, programSlugs, mainProtocolId)
pointNoInclude opportunities with point campaigns
actionNoA comma separated list actions. Legal values: POOL,HOLD,DROP,LEND,BORROW,LONG,SHORT,SWAP,INVALID
searchNoSearch amongst multiple values (token, protocols, tags, campaigns)
statusNoA comma separated list of status. Legal values: LIVE,PAST,SOON
tokensNoA comma separated list of token symbol. Use to filter by token
chainIdNoA comma separated list of chain ids. Example: ?chainId=1,42161
campaignsNoInclude campaign data. Will slow down the request
chainNameNoA comma separated list of chain names. Example: ?chainName=ethereum,arbitrum
campaignIdNoSearch the opportunity linked to a given campaignId
identifierNoFilter by identifier (mainParameter)
maximumAprNoMaximum APR threshold
maximumTvlNoMaximum TVL threshold in USD
minimumAprNoMinimum APR threshold
minimumTvlNoMinimum TVL threshold in USD
tokenTypesNoFilter by token type. Use POINT to include point campaigns and PRETGE to include preTGE campaigns.
creatorSlugNo
programSlugsNoA comma separated list of program ids or slugs. See GET /v4/programs
creatorAddressNoFilter by creator address
mainProtocolIdNoA comma separated list of protocol ids. See GET /v4/protocols
distributionTypesNoFilter by distribution type. Legal values: FIX_REWARD, MAX_REWARD, DUTCH_AUCTION
rewardTokenSymbolNoFilter by opportunity with at least 1 campaign where the reward token has this symbol
excludeSubCampaignsNoExclude sub-campaigns from the results

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bucketsYesAggregation buckets for the requested field

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.9

TDQS

D1.7/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about authentication requirements, rate limits, response shape, or what the aggregation returns. A bare URL path conveys zero behavioral context for a 27-parameter endpoint.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

It is short, but that brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficient communication—an endpoint path is not a description. There is no front-loaded statement of purpose or outcome.

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

Completeness1/5

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

For a tool with 27 parameters, no annotations, and multiple near-identical aggregate siblings, the description is completely inadequate. Even though an output schema exists, the agent has no basis for choosing this tool over aggregate-max or aggregate-min.

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 96%, so nearly every parameter is already documented in the schema and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing beyond echoing the required {field} path parameter, so no extra credit is warranted.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description is nothing more than a raw endpoint path, 'GET /v4/opportunities/aggregate/{field}', which restates the tool name rather than explaining what aggregation produces. It hints at the resource (opportunities) and an operation (aggregate), but an agent gets no plain-language statement of what the result represents.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the obvious siblings opportunities-aggregate-max, opportunities-aggregate-min, or opportunities-search. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are stated anywhere.

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