FinTech Hodl Base DeFi risk intel

get_yields

Realized APY for Base vaults and lending markets: the APY depositors actually earned over 7 and 30 days, read from on-chain share prices, next to the quoted APY, with a verdict (matches, overstated, understated) and a risk score. Useful for finding the best yields on Base and spotting advertised yields that are not being paid. Ids work with every other route. 404 for unknown paths and 400 for invalid arguments, before any payment; 503 while data refreshes; charged only for a 200. Price: $0.01 USDC on Base (x402), charged only for a successful answer.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_yields"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`sort`	No	Order: risk_adjusted (default) ranks by opportunity score; realized_apy by the 30-day realized APY; sustainable_apy by the APY expected once incentives fade.
`type`	No	Opportunity type.
`asset`	No	Token symbol, e.g. USDC or WETH.
`limit`	No	How many items (default 20).
`min_apy`	No	Minimum quoted APY, percent.
`risk_max`	No	Maximum risk score (0-100, lower is lower modelled risk).
`stable_only`	No	Only stablecoin principal.
`realized_only`	No	Only opportunities with a realized on-chain APY.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 26, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / sort / description

Previous value: -"Order: risk_adjusted (default) ranks by opportunity score; realized_apy by the 30-day realized APY."New value: +"Order: risk_adjusted (default) ranks by opportunity score; realized_apy by the 30-day realized APY; sustainable_apy by the APY expected once incentives fade."

changedInput schema / properties / sort / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "risk_adjusted",
-  "realized_apy",
-  "quoted_apy",
-  "tvl"
-]New value: +[
+  "risk_adjusted",
+  "realized_apy",
+  "quoted_apy",
+  "sustainable_apy",
+  "tvl"
+]

AddedOct 25, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does well: it discloses the data source (on-chain share prices), the 7/30-day measurement window, error semantics (404 unknown path, 400 invalid args, 503 during refresh), and that failures are not charged. It stops short of stating read-only/no-side-effects, though the 'get' verb and price model imply it.

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?

Return shape and use case are front-loaded in the first two sentences, and error/pricing terms follow. Slight redundancy: "charged only for a 200" and "charged only for a successful answer" restate the same rule.

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?

For an 8-param, zero-required read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers return content, error behavior, cost, and cross-route id compatibility. An agent has enough to call it correctly, with only the read-only guarantee left implicit.

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 coverage is 100% and two params have enums with per-value documentation, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds only marginal filter context (realized vs quoted windows, risk score meaning) and says nothing specific about limit, asset, or the boolean filters beyond what the schema states.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific resource and scope: realized APY for Base vaults and lending markets, read from on-chain share prices, paired with quoted APY and a verdict. The realized-vs-quoted framing implicitly separates it from quoted-rate siblings like get_lending_rates, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

"Useful for finding the best yields on Base and spotting advertised yields that are not being paid" gives a use case, but with 15 siblings including search_opportunities, get_lending_rates, get_yield_farming and get_opportunity_score, there is no routing guidance about when to prefer this tool over those.

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

All FinTech Hodl Base DeFi risk intel tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?