boo-mpp-mcp

DeFi yield finder

defi_yields

Search DeFi yield and farming opportunities by symbol, chain, or safety level to identify suitable investments.

Instructions

Find yield/farming opportunities, optionally filtered by symbol, chain, or safety.

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": "defi_yields"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`chain`	No	Chain to filter.
`limit`	No	Max results.
`symbol`	No	Token symbol to filter (USDC, ETH...).
`safeOnly`	No	true for lower-risk pools only.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Aug 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the paid nature (up to $0.01 per call) and automatic payment, which is important behavioral context beyond simply finding yields. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what the response format looks like, or any potential side effects, leaving room for uncertainty.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose and then a clear cost note. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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?

For a tool with four optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, filters, and cost. It is not overly verbose, and the cost disclosure is valuable. However, it could be more complete by hinting at the return format or example usage, especially since no output schema exists to clarify that.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema: it mentions 'symbol, chain, or safety' in prose, which aligns with the schema properties (symbol, chain, safeOnly). It does not provide any additional format or usage details that the schema already offers.

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 'Find yield/farming opportunities' with optional filters by symbol, chain, or safety. This is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like defi_tvl, which also deals with DeFi metrics.

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 context by mentioning optional filters, but it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like defi_tvl or other DeFi tools. No explicit when/when-not guidance is given, so the usage intent is somewhat implied rather than clearly directed.

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