boo-mpp-mcp

DeFi protocol TVL

defi_tvl

Get total value locked and recent change for any DeFi protocol by providing its slug (e.g., aave, uniswap).

Instructions

Total value locked and recent change for a DeFi protocol.

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

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": {
      "protocol": "<protocol>"
    },
    "name": "defi_tvl"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`protocol`	Yes	Protocol slug (aave, uniswap, lido...).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Aug 6, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the paid nature and automatic payment, which is useful cost context. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, nor does it explain how 'recent change' is calculated or whether any rate limits apply. Some context is added but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences; the first clearly states the tool's function, the second adds essential cost information. No filler or repetition. Well front-loaded.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple single-parameter tool without output schema or annotations, the description covers the basic purpose and cost but omits the meaning of 'recent change' (e.g., percentage, period) and the return format. These are notable gaps for a user to interpret the output 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?

The schema fully covers the single parameter with a clear description of protocol slugs. The tool description adds no additional parameter details, so the schema carries all the weight. Baseline 3 applies due to 100% schema coverage.

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 identifies the tool as providing total value locked and recent change for a DeFi protocol, distinguishing it from siblings like chain_tvl and defi_yields. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'query,' making the action implicit rather than stated.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative TVL/yield tools. It does not mention that this is protocol-specific while chain_tvl is chain-level, nor does it point to defi_yields for yield data. The usage context is only implied by the word 'protocol.'

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