Skip to main content
Glama

YieldSignal

by io.github.Stakemate369

get_yield_decision

Buyer-side MOVE/HOLD decision (Layer 1 premium — sells the decision, not the raw datapoint). Given your current position, size, move cost and horizon, returns whether moving your capital to the best risk-adjusted protocol pays for itself now — with expected net gain, break-even days and a confidence tier. Deterministic from the underlying signal, which is EIP-712 signed and returned in a sibling content block (re-run the decision locally to reproduce it). Priced above the plain signal tool.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
assetNoWhich market the decision is for: USDC/WETH lending on Base, or ETH_STAKING liquid staking on Ethereum mainnet. Defaults to USDC.
positionNoProtocol where your capital sits now (aave/morpho/compound/moonwell/euler/fluid/lido/rocket-pool/coinbase-wrapped-staked-eth/frax-ether/binance-staked-eth). Omit or use 'idle' if uninvested.
amountUsdNoPosition size in USD. Scales the absolute gain and break-even. Defaults to 1000.
horizonDaysNoHow many days you expect to hold before re-evaluating. Gain only counts up to here. Defaults to 30.
moveCostUsdNoYour estimated cost to move (gas + slippage) in USD. Defaults to 0.5.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / asset / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "USDC",
-  "WETH",
-  "ETH_STAKING"
-]New value: +[
+  "ETH_STAKING",
+  "USDC",
+  "WETH"
+]
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses deterministic behavior, EIP-712 signing, and reproducibility via re-run. It does not explicitly state read-only or destructive traits, but the context suggests read-only.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, outputs, determinism, comparison to sibling. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description explains return values (net gain, break-even days, confidence tier) and deterministic nature. It could mention how confidence tier works, but overall sufficient.

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 baseline is 3. The description mention parameters generically but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter.

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 clearly states the tool returns a MOVE/HOLD decision based on position, size, move cost, and horizon. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'plain signal tool' by emphasizing it sells the decision, not raw data.

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 implies when to use this tool over the sibling ('Priced above the plain signal tool'), but does not explicitly state alternative use cases or when not to use it. More direct guidance would improve clarity.

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

All YieldSignal 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

A4.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool addresses a distinct aspect of yield analysis: signal provides raw data, durability stress-tests incentive dependence, decision recommends an action, and exit capacity evaluates liquidity. There is no overlap; an agent can clearly select the right tool for the task.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent get_<yield_>?<specific> pattern, using snake_case and a uniform verb. get_exit_capacity fits the pattern with 'get_' and a clear noun even without 'yield' in the name, maintaining predictability.

Tool Count5/5

Four tools is a well-scoped set for a focused yield analytics server. Each tool earns its place by covering a distinct part of the decision workflow without redundancy or unnecessary bloat.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers the full yield analysis lifecycle: raw signal, durability under incentive changes, decision recommendation, and exit liquidity. There are no obvious dead ends; an agent can go from data to action to exit assessment without missing critical operations.

Resources