Skip to main content
Glama

L2beat

by io.github.pipeworx-io

List Projects

list_projects
Read-onlyIdempotent

Rank Ethereum layer 2 networks by Total Value Secured (TVS) in USD, largest first. Answers "which L2 has the most value secured / is the biggest L2", and gives the top-10 leaderboard of rollups, validiums, optimiums and sidechains. Each row returns rank, project name, L2BEAT slug, category (Optimistic Rollup / ZK Rollup / Validium / Other), layer type, host chain, decentralisation stage, tvs_usd, the 7-day TVS change, and the TVS split across native, canonical, external, ether, stablecoin and BTC holdings. Covers every project L2BEAT tracks; use limit to widen the leaderboard.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoHow many top-ranked projects to return (default 25, max 200).
categoryNoKeep only one category, e.g. "Optimistic Rollup", "ZK Rollup", "Validium".
include_chartNoSet true to append the 124-point ecosystem-wide TVS time series (default false).
include_archivedNoSet true to also rank projects L2BEAT has archived (default false).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed5 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / examples
      Previous value: -[
-  {}
-]New value: +[
+  {},
+  {
+    "limit": 10
+  },
+  {
+    "category": "ZK Rollup",
+    "limit": 5
+  }
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / category
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Keep only one category, e.g. \"Optimistic Rollup\", \"ZK Rollup\", \"Validium\".",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / include_archived
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Set true to also rank projects L2BEAT has archived (default false).",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / include_chart
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Set true to append the 124-point ecosystem-wide TVS time series (default false).",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "How many top-ranked projects to return (default 25, max 200).",
+  "type": "number"
+}
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {}
+]
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "description": "List of L2BEAT-tracked projects with summary data",
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
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 bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context: it lists the exact return fields (rank, slug, category, layer type, host chain, etc.), states it covers every tracked project, and explains the optional chart and archived flags. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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?

The description is dense but well-structured, starting with the core purpose and then enumerating return fields and coverage. It is longer than necessary but each sentence contributes meaningful information; no filler or tautology.

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?

With an output schema present and a simple read-only tool, the description covers the main use case, output fields, and parameter behavior (limit widening). It is complete enough that an agent can confidently invoke the tool, though it could briefly mention how category filtering affects results or that default limit is 25.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so all four parameters have descriptions. The description adds minimal extra semantics beyond "use limit to widen the leaderboard" and implicitly references category in the examples. Since the schema fully documents each parameter, a baseline of 3 is appropriate and the description provides marginal additional value.

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 and resource: "Rank Ethereum layer 2 networks by Total Value Secured (TVS) in USD, largest first." It clearly answers a concrete question ("which L2 has the most value secured") and distinguishes itself from siblings like tvs_breakdown and tvs_history by framing the output as a leaderboard covering all projects.

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?

The description states when to use the tool (e.g., "Answers 'which L2 has the most value secured / is the biggest L2'") and provides a clear use case. It also mentions widening the leaderboard with the limit parameter, though it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it.

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

All L2beat toolsInspect
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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The tool set mixes L2beat-specific tools with a large number of unrelated Pipeworx, Polymarket, and other domain tools. While individual descriptions are clear, the overall set forces agents to navigate many irrelevant tools, causing confusion about the server's primary purpose.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names follow inconsistent conventions: snake_case (list_projects), camelCase (ask_pipeworx), and mixed patterns (generate_llms_txt, bet_research). No unified naming pattern exists across the set, reducing predictability.

Tool Count1/5

With 35 tools, the count is far too high for an L2beat server. Only about 5-6 tools are actually related to L2 scaling; the rest are from other domains, making the tool surface bloated and unfocused.

Completeness2/5

The L2beat-specific tools cover basic operations (list projects, get project, TVS, activity) but lack important features like bridge analysis, project comparisons, or detailed risk breakdowns. The numerous unrelated tools do not address gaps in L2 functionality.

Resources