tech-risk

defi_yields

Live DeFi lending/LP yield pools (project, chain, symbol, pool id, APY breakdown incl. 1d/7d/30d trend + apyBase7d/apyMean30d, IL risk incl. il7d, exposure, reward/underlying tokens, outlier flag, mu/sigma, DefiLlama stability forecast, TVL, stablecoin flag) from DefiLlama, ranked by TVL (or risk-adjusted APY = apy/sigma). Cost: $0.005 USDC per call via x402.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`sort`	No	Sort order: 'tvl' (default) or 'risk_adjusted' (apy/sigma)
`chain`	No	Filter by chain name
`limit`	No	Number of results, default 20, max 100
`stable`	No	Only stablecoin pools
`project`	No	Filter by DefiLlama project slug

Schema Changelog

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

Changed1 schema field changedJul 17, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / sort

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Sort order: 'tvl' (default) or 'risk_adjusted' (apy/sigma)",
+  "enum": [
+    "tvl",
+    "risk_adjusted"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

AddedJul 17, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the source, cost, and many output fields (APY breakdown, IL risk, outlier flag, etc.), giving good behavioral insight. However, it does not explicitly state read-only nature or rate limits.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is dense and somewhat run-on, packing many details into a single sentence. While all information is relevant, it lacks clear structure and could be more concise and better organized.

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?

Given the complexity (5 parameters, rich output), the description is quite comprehensive, covering data fields, cost, and ranking logic. However, it does not describe output structure (e.g., list of pools) or pagination behavior, which would improve completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions, but the description adds significant context beyond schema, such as the meaning of 'risk_adjusted' sort (apy/sigma) and default sort order. It also explains output fields that help interpret parameter effects.

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 explicitly states it provides live DeFi lending/LP yield pools from DefiLlama, listing specific data fields. It distinguishes from the sibling 'defi_yields_preview' by including cost and full details.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'defi_yields_preview' or other crypto tools. It only implies sorting options but lacks when-not-to-use or comparative context.

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

All tech-risk 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

A3.7/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

The tools are organized into clear families (chain, crypto, defi, pm, enrich, scan) and each targets a distinct data type. The preview tools are explicitly labeled as free samples, reducing but not eliminating confusion with their paid counterparts. Some overlap exists between chain_wallet and chain_balance, and between enrich_domain and enrich_tech_risk, but descriptions clarify the difference.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent resource_action pattern using snake_case (chain_balance, crypto_funding, enrich_domain). Preview tools consistently append '_preview' to their paid counterpart. The only minor variation is abbreviations like 'tx', 'pm', 'defi', but these are uniform.

Tool Count3/5

At 22 tools, the server is on the heavy side. The eight preview tools duplicate the functionality of their paid versions and inflate the count, though they serve a legitimate 'try before pay' purpose. The remaining 14 paid tools cover a wide range of risk data, making the count borderline appropriate.

Completeness4/5

The set covers on-chain balances, token security, DeFi yields, crypto prices, funding rates, prediction markets, domain enrichment, tech-risk CVE scanning, and MCP server auditing, which is a comprehensive risk toolkit. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no historical data, no address reputation, no token price by address), but the core workflows are well covered.

Resources

Need Help?