Skip to main content
Glama

Server Details

Real-time risk-weighted USDC lending APY across Aave, Compound, Morpho, Moonwell, Euler and Fluid on Base. Every reading tagged with its data source (onchain/api/defillama). Pay-per-call via x402, $0.01 USDC, 3 free calls/day.

Status
Unhealthy
Last Tested
Transport
Streamable HTTP
URL

Glama MCP Gateway

Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.

MCP client
Glama
MCP server

Full call logging

Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.

Tool access control

Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.

Managed credentials

Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.

Usage analytics

See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.

100% free. Your data is private.
Tool DescriptionsA

Average 3.9/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.

Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5

With only one tool, there is no possibility for confusion between tools. The tool's purpose is clearly defined and distinct.

Naming Consistency5/5

The single tool name 'get_yield_signal' follows a clear verb_noun pattern, which is consistent and predictable.

Tool Count4/5

One tool is on the low end, but it is appropriate for the narrow, focused purpose of retrieving a yield signal. It earns its place.

Completeness4/5

The tool covers the core functionality of retrieving the yield signal for USDC and WETH across multiple protocols, but lacks features like historical data or filtering by protocol.

Available Tools

1 tool
get_yield_signalAInspect

Real-time risk-weighted yield signal. USDC/WETH: lending APY on Base (Aave/Compound/Morpho read onchain, Moonwell/Euler/Fluid via DefiLlama). ETH_STAKING: liquid staking APY on Ethereum mainnet (Lido/Rocket Pool/Coinbase Wrapped Staked ETH/Frax Ether/Binance Staked ETH, all via DefiLlama) — a different chain and category from the lending signals, not a Base lending market. Source tagged per reading (never estimated). Result is signed (EIP-712 typed data) by the payment-receiving address, returned as a sibling content block for offline verification. That same address is registered on-chain as an ERC-8004 agent identity (agent-card.json) and periodically publishes EAS attestations of past readings (Base mainnet) — a public track record independent of this server's uptime.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
assetNoWhich yield signal to fetch: USDC/WETH lending APY on Base, or ETH_STAKING liquid staking APY on Ethereum mainnet. Defaults to USDC.
Behavior4/5

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

Discloses that data sources are tagged (onchain/api/defillama) and that failing sources are omitted rather than estimated. This provides good transparency about data reliability. However, does not explain 'risk-weighted' methodology.

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?

Two efficient sentences: first states purpose and scope, second adds important behavioral transparency. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema provided, and description does not detail the response format (e.g., list of APY values per protocol). For a simple tool this is a minor gap, but it could be more complete.

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?

The only parameter 'asset' has full enum coverage in the input schema. The tool description adds minimal extra value beyond what the schema already provides, so 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?

Clearly states it returns real-time risk-weighted USDC or WETH lending APY across multiple protocols on Base. Very specific verb+resource combination, with explicit enumeration of platforms and assets.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Since no sibling tools are listed, the need is reduced, but it would benefit from mentioning typical use cases (e.g., comparing yields before depositing).

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

Discussions

No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!

Try in Browser

Your Connectors

Sign in to create a connector for this server.

Resources