stellar-pulse-mcp

Stellar DeFi overview

stellar_defi

Read-onlyIdempotent

Query Stellar DeFi metrics from DefiLlama: total value locked, chain rank, leading protocols with 1d/7d changes, and TVL by category such as lending, DEX, and yield.

Instructions

DeFi on Stellar from DefiLlama: total value locked, rank among all chains, the leading protocols with 1d/7d change, and TVL by category (lending, DEX, yield...).

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": "stellar_defi"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	How many protocols to return

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 23, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive open-world call, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by disclosing the data source (DefiLlama) and the metric granularity (1d/7d changes), but says nothing about freshness, rate limits, or how the chain rank is computed.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the data source and main metrics front-loaded, followed by a brief parenthetical list of categories. No filler or repetition.

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 read-only overview tool with no output schema, the description gives an adequate inventory of what comes back and where it comes from. It does not cover response formatting or data freshness, but those are minor gaps given the annotations already cover the safety profile.

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?

There is only one optional parameter, limit, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains it as 'how many protocols to return.' The description's phrase 'the leading protocols' hints that limit controls protocols, but it adds no further semantics beyond the schema.

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 names a specific resource (DeFi data on Stellar, sourced from DefiLlama) and enumerates the exact contents: TVL, chain rank, leading protocols with 1d/7d change, and TVL by category. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like stellar_asset or stellar_orderbook, though it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb.

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 says what data is returned but offers no guidance on when to choose this tool versus the sibling tools, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the topic.

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

Deploy Server