Skip to main content
Glama

yieldhunter

by io.github.agentsherpa

Explain score

explain_score
Read-onlyIdempotent

Agent-readable explanation of why an opportunity received its risk-adjusted score.

Chain: pass list_yields opportunities[].id as poolId, opportunityId, or id (aliases for the same key).

Returns a summary paragraph, factor bullets with weighted contributions, net-yield notes, and an exitRisk heuristic line (liquidity-only — not on-chain withdraw or transfer/eligibility; medium often confidence-driven, not pool size; extra bullet when knownIssues note transfer restrictions). sourceChainKey is ethereum|base|arbitrum only (unknown → VALIDATION_ERROR; no invented bridge fee). Prefer this when you need to justify a ranking to a human or another agent.

Research only — non-custodial.

Example: { "opportunityId": "43641cf5-a92e-416b-bce9-27113d3c0db6", "horizonDays": 30 } Also accepts poolId or id with the same value.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoSame as list_yields opportunities[].id (canonical response field name).
poolIdNoAlias for list_yields opportunities[].id (historical tool field). Same DefiLlama pool UUID. Example: "43641cf5-a92e-416b-bce9-27113d3c0db6"
horizonDaysNoHolding horizon in days for gas/bridge amortization (default 30). Example: 30
notionalUsdNoNotional USD size for net-yield cost amortization and exitRisk TVL multiples (default 10000). Example: 10000
opportunityIdNoAlias for list_yields opportunities[].id (same pool key as poolId / id).
sourceChainKeyNoAgent's current chain for bridge cost estimate: ethereum | base | arbitrum (aliases: eth, ETH, Ethereum, arb, ARB, BASE). Blank/whitespace is VALIDATION_ERROR (omit the field to default). Unknown keys (solana, foo) return VALIDATION_ERROR — no invented bridge fee.

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses what the tool returns (summary paragraph, factor bullets, net-yield notes, exitRisk line), notes that it is research-only and non-custodial, and describes validation behavior (e.g., unknown sourceChainKey returns VALIDATION_ERROR). This complements the readOnly/idempotent annotations without contradiction.

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?

The description is well-structured: purpose, chain instruction, return details, validation notes, and an example. Every sentence carries necessary information; there is no redundancy. It is concise given the complexity (6 parameters, aliases, validation rules).

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

Completeness5/5

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

The description covers all essential aspects: the input parameters and their relationships, the output format, the validation behavior, and the non-custodial nature. It also clarifies the relationship to sibling tools (list_yields) and gives an example. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to use the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

While the schema already covers all parameters (100% coverage), the description adds valuable context: each alias is explained (poolId, opportunityId, id are the same key), defaults are given for horizonDays and notionalUsd, and validation rules for sourceChainKey are detailed (blank/unknown keys cause VALIDATION_ERROR). This enriches the schema meaningfully.

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's purpose: to provide an agent-readable explanation of why an opportunity received its risk-adjusted score. It also names the specific output (summary paragraph, factor bullets, net-yield notes, exitRisk heuristic) and implies it is distinct from sibling tools like score_opportunity and list_yields.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly instructs how to invoke the tool: pass list_yields opportunities[].id as poolId, opportunityId, or id. It also gives a clear 'when to use' scenario: when you need to justify a ranking to a human or another agent. This is direct and actionable.

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

All yieldhunter 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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

The tools are mostly distinct: list_yields for ranking, score_opportunity for detailed scoring of one, explain_score for explaining a score, compare_opportunities for side-by-side comparison, get_protocol_risk for protocol-level risk, and health for connectivity. However, score_opportunity and explain_score have overlapping purposes (both return factor scores and rationale), which could cause some confusion, though they serve different output formats.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming pattern is mostly consistent using verb_noun (e.g., list_yields, get_protocol_risk, explain_score, compare_opportunities, score_opportunity). One deviation: 'health' is a single-word name that breaks the verb_noun pattern, but it's a minor deviation and still readable.

Tool Count5/5

With 6 tools, this is well-scoped for a yield research server. Each tool has a distinct role: listing, scoring, explaining, comparing, protocol risk, and health check. The count feels appropriate for the domain, not overly heavy or thin.

Completeness3/5

The server covers core research needs: listing opportunities, detailed scoring, explanation, comparison, protocol risk, and health check. However, there are some minor gaps: no direct way to filter by specific pool ID without first listing, no tool to get historical trends or detailed market info beyond the scoring. But the domain is research-only non-custodial, so a full CRUD lifecycle isn't expected; still, a tool to fetch specific opportunity details without scoring could be missing.

Resources