@true402.dev/mcp-server

defi_yields

Filter + rank live DeFi lending/staking pool APYs across every protocol/chain (DefiLlama, ~15k pools). POST `{ chain?, project?, asset?, stablecoinOnly?, minTvlUsd?, includeOutliers?, limit?

Instructions

Filter + rank live DeFi lending/staking pool APYs across every protocol/chain (DefiLlama, ~15k pools). POST { chain?, project?, asset?, stablecoinOnly?, minTvlUsd?, includeOutliers?, limit? }; returns pools sorted by APY (percent units, apyBase/apyReward split), TVL, stablecoin + ilRisk flags, and the DefiLlama poolId. Exploit-y outlier pools excluded by default. Unpaid: free while the caller's IP has free-trial calls left that day (a small daily allowance shared across the trial stalls, no wallet); otherwise returns 402. Flat-priced per request. (PAID x402 service — USDC on Base; the MCP server needs a funded wallet to settle.) Price: $0.005 USD (fixed).

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
`asset`	No	Case-insensitive substring match on the pool symbol
`chain`	No	Filter by chain, case-insensitive (e.g. "Base")
`limit`	No	Max pools, 1–50 (default 20), applied after sort
`project`	No	Filter by protocol, case-insensitive (e.g. "aave-v3")
`minTvlUsd`	No	Drop pools below this TVL (USD), ≥ 0
`stablecoinOnly`	No	Keep only stablecoin pools
`includeOutliers`	No	Include DefiLlama outlier:true pools (default false)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.3.0Oct 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: default exclusion of exploit-y outlier pools, percent-unit APYs with apyBase/apyReward split, explicit 402 failure mode, the x402/USDC-on-Base settlement requirement (funded wallet on the MCP server), and per-request pricing. That is exactly the beyond-schema behavior an agent needs before committing a paid call.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Purpose and data source are front-loaded in the first clause, then the POST shape, then return fields, then payment terms. Efficient overall, but the pricing model is stated three times ('Flat-priced per request', 'PAID x402 service', 'Price: $0.005 USD (fixed)'), which is mild redundancy.

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

Completeness5/5

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

No output schema exists, so the description must cover returns — and it does, naming APY units, the apyBase/apyReward split, TVL, stablecoin and ilRisk flags, and the DefiLlama poolId. Combined with the payment and failure-mode disclosure, an agent has everything needed to call this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every one of the 7 parameters is already documented, and the description only restates their names in the POST shape without adding format or semantics (e.g., substring-match behavior, limit-vs-sort ordering). Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific compound verb (filter + rank) plus a precise resource (live DeFi lending/staking pool APYs across all protocols/chains), with the data source and scale (~15k pools, DefiLlama) named. No sibling tool covers DeFi yields, so the scope is unambiguous without consulting any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives clear operational context for when this is the right call: you want APY-ranked pool data with optional chain/project/asset/TVL narrowing, and outlier pools are excluded unless opted in. It also explains the free-trial-vs-402 gate, which is usage-critical. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or a when-not-to-use case, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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