Skip to main content
Glama

Earn rates (APR/APY)

get_earn_rates
Read-onlyIdempotent

Current yields per year in percent: liquidity-pool fee APR, lending supply/borrow APY and staking return of the best stake pools. To rank where one specific asset can earn, use compare_yields.

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_earn_rates"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoHow many rows per kind to return (1-50, default 10).
filterNoWhich kind of yield to return.all

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds framing about 'best stake pools' (implying a selection/ranking behavior) but doesn't mention pagination, freshness, or what 'best' means. The added behavioral context is modest.

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 tight sentences: first sentence front-loads what is returned and its units; second sentence handles sibling routing. No filler.

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?

There's no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden, and it does identify the three yield categories and the '% per year' unit. It doesn't explain output row shape or whether borrow APY is cost vs. yield, which leaves minor ambiguity.

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% with explicit descriptions for both `limit` and `filter`, including the enum meaning. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

The description states the resource and scope precisely: current annual yields in percent, broken into liquidity-pool fee APR, lending supply/borrow APY, and staking returns from best stake pools. It distinguishes itself from the closest sibling (compare_yields) by naming it directly. It stops short of a clean verb-first phrasing, but the content is clear.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent to `compare_yields` for ranking one specific asset's earning options, which is a concrete alternative and condition. It doesn't state negative conditions for this tool (e.g., when not to use it) or prerequisites, but the differentiation is actionable.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources