Gate Info MCP

info_platformmetrics_get_yield_pools

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lending and LP pools by APY or TVL. scope=full adds apy_base_30d, apy_reward_30d, reward_tokens, market_share. One protocol profile→get_platform_info. TVL series→get_platform_history. Read-only public research data. No account access, no order placement or fund transfers. Not investment advice.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`chain`	No	Chain filter.
`limit`	No	Rows; default 20, max 400.
`scope`	No	basic (default)\|full. full adds apy_base_30d, apy_reward_30d, reward_tokens, market_share.
`symbol`	No	Asset e.g. USDC, ETH-USDC.
`project`	No	Protocol e.g. aave-v3.
`sort_by`	No	apy\|tvl_usd; default apy.
`pool_type`	No	Exposure single\|multi or Lending\|LP\|Staking; maps to ES exposure.
`min_tvl_usd`	No	Min TVL USD; default 100000 when omitted; 0 = no floor.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chain`	Yes
`count`	Yes
`items`	Yes
`limit`	Yes
`scope`	Yes
`total`	Yes
`symbol`	Yes
`project`	Yes
`sort_by`	Yes
`pool_type`	Yes
`duration_ms`	Yes
`min_tvl_usd`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed5 schema fields changedAug 27, 2026
- addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```
- changedInput schema / properties / min_tvl_usd / type
```
Previous value: -"number"New value: +[
+  "null",
+  "number"
+]
```
- addedOutput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / items / items / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +true
```
- changedOutput schema / properties / items / type
```
Previous value: -"array"New value: +[
+  "null",
+  "array"
+]
```

Changed3 schema fields changedJun 10, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / scope

Added value: +{
+  "description": "basic (default)|full. full adds apy_base_30d, apy_reward_30d, reward_tokens, market_share.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / scope
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "project",
-  "chain",
-  "symbol",
-  "pool_type",
-  "sort_by",
-  "min_tvl_usd",
-  "limit",
-  "total",
-  "count",
-  "items",
-  "duration_ms"
-]New value: +[
+  "project",
+  "chain",
+  "symbol",
+  "pool_type",
+  "sort_by",
+  "min_tvl_usd",
+  "limit",
+  "scope",
+  "total",
+  "count",
+  "items",
+  "duration_ms"
+]

First observedApr 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds valuable specificity beyond annotations: 'No account access, no order placement or fund transfers' and 'Not investment advice.' This fills in the operational envelope without contradicting the annotations.

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 a single, dense sentence spread over a few lines. It front-loads the core purpose, then gives routing alternatives, then safety disclaimers. Every clause contributes meaning; there is no fluff or repetition. It is concise while packing substantial information.

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?

Given the tool has 8 optional parameters, an existing output schema, and comprehensive schema descriptions, the description covers the essential context: what the tool returns, how to adjust scope, which siblings cover adjacent use cases, and its safety boundaries. Nothing critical for an agent to correctly invoke the tool is missing, and the output format is already handled by the output schema.

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 all eight parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description mentions 'scope=full adds apy_base_30d, ...' but this duplicates the schema's own description for scope. The main added value is the overall context that pools are sorted by APY or TVL, but that is not a parameter-specific explanation. The schema carries the semantic load, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Lending and LP pools by APY or TVL.' This precisely states what the tool retrieves and immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_platform_info and get_platform_history, which are explicitly referenced. The purpose is clear and unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description provides explicit routing guidance: 'One protocol profile→get_platform_info. TVL series→get_platform_history.' It also frames the tool's context as read-only public research data, clarifying when it is appropriate to use. This is strong, actionable guidance for an agent deciding between tools.

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

All Gate Info MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct data object and action (e.g., coin info vs rankings, market snapshot vs batch, marketdetail kline vs markettrend kline), with prefixes and descriptions clearly separated by domain. No two tools appear to serve the same purpose.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent pattern: info_<domain>_<verb>_<object>, with verbs mainly get, search, and batch. The naming style is uniform across all 32 tools, making it easy to infer tool purpose from its name.

Tool Count3/5

32 tools is heavy compared to typical servers, and it exceeds the 25-tool threshold. However, the server is a comprehensive crypto data aggregator covering multiple subdomains (coin, macro, market, onchain, platform metrics), which justifies the large count to some extent. It sits at the borderline between borderline and too many.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full lifecycle for read-only research: coin discovery, rankings, search, technical analysis, onchain exploration, platform metrics, stablecoins, yield pools, bridges, and macro indicators. No critical missing functionality for the stated purpose of public research data access.

info_platformmetrics_get_yield_pools

Input Schema

Output Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources