YieldSignal

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

Name	Required	Description
`asset`	No	Which market the decision is for: USDC/WETH lending on Base, or ETH_STAKING liquid staking on Ethereum mainnet. Defaults to USDC.
`position`	No	Protocol 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.
`amountUsd`	No	Position size in USD. Scales the absolute gain and break-even. Defaults to 1000.
`horizonDays`	No	How many days you expect to hold before re-evaluating. Gain only counts up to here. Defaults to 30.
`moveCostUsd`	No	Your estimated cost to move (gas + slippage) in USD. Defaults to 0.5.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is deterministic from an underlying signal, that the signal is EIP-712 signed and returned in a sibling content block, and that the decision can be reproduced locally. It also hints at pricing without specifying costs, which is acceptable transparency.

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 slightly long but well-structured with a clear lead sentence. Each sentence adds unique value, including contrast with sibling, explanation of return values, and verification info. No redundancy, but could be tightened slightly.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain return values. It mentions 'expected net gain, break-even days and a confidence tier', which is adequate. It also covers deterministic behavior and verification. For a tool with 5 parameters, the description is complete enough.

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 description coverage is 100%, baseline is 3. The description adds context beyond schema: e.g., 'amountUsd scales the absolute gain and break-even', 'horizonDays limits gain counting', 'moveCostUsd estimated cost'. This clarifies how parameters affect outputs, justifying a score above baseline.

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 provides a 'MOVE/HOLD decision' for the buyer side, specifies it is a 'Layer 1 premium' that sells the decision rather than raw data, and contrasts with the sibling tool 'get_yield_signal' by noting it is 'priced above the plain signal tool'. The verb 'returns' and resource 'whether moving capital pays for itself' are specific.

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 explains when to use the tool: given current position, size, move cost, and horizon. It implies the alternative is 'get_yield_signal' for raw data by stating it is 'priced above the plain signal tool', but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool. The context is clear enough for an AI agent.

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

All YieldSignal 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

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Each tool targets a distinct analytical question (current yield, sustainability, decision, rate sensitivity, exit liquidity). The descriptions are detailed and clearly separate the tools, though get_exit_capacity and get_rate_sensitivity both involve utilization and could be superficially confused by an agent.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent 'get_' verb-noun pattern, with descriptive nouns like 'yield_signal', 'yield_durability', 'yield_decision', 'rate_sensitivity', and 'exit_capacity'. The pattern is predictable and readable.

Tool Count5/5

Five tools is well-scoped for a specialized yield analytics server. Each tool earns its place by covering a distinct aspect of yield assessment, avoiding bloat while providing sufficient functionality.

Completeness4/5

The set covers the core yield analysis lifecycle: signal, durability, decision, rate sensitivity, and exit capacity. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit tool for historical comparisons or protocol discovery, but the described tools handle the main workflows.

Resources

Need Help?