Compare two protocols side by side — average APY, max APY, TVL, chains supported, top pools. E.g. 'aave-v3' vs 'compound-v3'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| protocol_a | No | First protocol (e.g. 'aave-v3') (required) | |
| protocol_b | No | Second protocol (e.g. 'compound-v3') (required) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only comparison operation and lists output dimensions, but does not disclose potential quirks (e.g., unsupported protocol names, data freshness, or whether it makes API calls). The description is not misleading, but it lacks rich behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that front-loads the action, then lists relevant metrics and an example. Every word contributes value, and it is appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple comparison tool with two string parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough context about what the tool produces (average APY, max APY, TVL, chains, top pools). It lacks information about error handling or output format, but the tool's simplicity and the schema's completeness mitigate these gaps. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly in most cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds example protocol names that are also present in the schema, but does not significantly enhance parameter semantics. Both parameters are documented clearly in the schema, leaving minimal additional meaning to be added.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Compare') and resource ('two protocols'), and lists concrete comparison metrics (APY, TVL, chains, pools). It differentiates from siblings like top_yields or chain_yields by emphasizing side-by-side comparison. The concrete example 'aave-v3' vs 'compound-v3' further clarifies usage.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (when comparing two protocols), but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The example provides practical guidance, but there is no explicit exclusion or differentiation from sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes: health_check is unique, while yield_compare, yield_scan, and rwa_yield are clearly specialized. However, chain_yields, stablecoin_yield, and top_yields all provide yield rankings, differing only by filter (chain, stablecoin, global), which could cause some confusion despite clear descriptions.
All tool names use lowercase_with_underscores and mostly follow a noun/noun or noun/verb pattern (e.g., chain_yields, stablecoin_yield, yield_compare, yield_scan). The pattern is consistent in style, though not strictly verb_noun for all (e.g., rwa_yield, health_check are exceptions).
With 8 tools, the set is well-scoped for a DeFi yield aggregator. Each tool covers a distinct niche (global, chain, stablecoin, RWA, risk-adjusted, comparison, deep scan, health), and there is no redundancy that would benefit from removal.
The tool surface covers the main yield discovery needs: top yields, chain-specific, asset-class filters, risk adjustment, comparison, and deep pool analysis. Missing features like historical yield trends or protocol-specific filtering are minor gaps that agents can work around with existing tools.