boo-mpp-mcp

Chain TVL overview

chain_tvl

Compare blockchain ecosystems by retrieving total value locked (TVL) for one chain or across all chains.

Instructions

Total value locked per blockchain, or for one chain. Compares ecosystem size.

PAID TOOL: up to $0.01 USDC.e per call (MPP on Tempo). Paid automatically from your configured wallet.

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": "chain_tvl"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chain`	No	Optional chain name to filter.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Aug 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds important cost information ('PAID TOOL: up to $0.01 USDC.e per call') and payment mechanics, which is valuable. However, it does not detail output format or edge cases, so it is not fully transparent.

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?

The description is extremely concise: a two-sentence purpose statement plus the necessary cost notice. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information (purpose and cost) is front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose and cost. It adequately addresses the main use case, though it lacks explicit mention of return formatting or interaction with sibling tools, which would make it fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 100% coverage for the single optional 'chain' parameter, but the description adds semantic value by explaining that the tool can operate per blockchain or for one chain, reinforcing the filter meaning. This goes beyond the schema's basic label, earning a 4.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool provides total value locked per blockchain or for a single chain, and that it compares ecosystem size. This is a specific verb-resource pairing, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'defi_tvl', so it stops short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for comparing ecosystem sizes, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like defi_tvl, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The context is present but not explicit.

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