PreFlyte — DeFi Financial Intelligence for AI Agents

check_entry_viability

Before entering a lending position, verify that the market is actually
open and has capacity.

Checks market status (active, frozen, borrowing enabled), supply/borrow
caps, and available liquidity. Returns a clear viable/not-viable verdict.

Args:
    api_key: Your PreFlyte API key (required).
    protocol: Protocol name — "aave-v3" or "compound-v3".
    chain: Chain name — "ethereum" or "arbitrum".
    asset: Asset symbol — "USDC", "WETH", etc.
    action: "supply" or "borrow".
    amount_usd: Intended position size in USD (optional, for context).

Returns:
    Dictionary with viable (true/false), market_status, capacity details,
    current rate, and confidence level.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`asset`	Yes
`chain`	Yes
`action`	Yes
`api_key`	Yes
`protocol`	Yes
`amount_usd`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedApr 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the checks performed (market status, caps, liquidity) and the return shape (viable verdict, market_status, capacity details, current rate, confidence). This is adequate, though it could mention error behavior or side effects (it appears read-only).

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 well-organized: a purpose sentence, a check summary, a structured Args list, and a Returns list. It is slightly longer than minimal but every sentence adds necessary context given the lack of schema descriptions. The front-loading of purpose is effective.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, this description provides a fairly complete picture: when to use, what it checks, parameter meanings, and return format. It lacks explicit exclusions or error semantics, but overall it is comprehensive for this tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description provides all parameter semantics. It gives clear definitions, examples, and requiredness for all six parameters (e.g., protocol values 'aave-v3' or 'compound-v3', chain examples, action 'supply'/'borrow', amount_usd optional). This fully compensates for the bare schema.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'verify that the market is actually open and has capacity' before entering a lending position. It specifies a distinct resource (lending market) and scope (entry viability), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like check_pool_viability.

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 explicitly says 'Before entering a lending position,' which provides a clear usage context. It does not mention when not to use the tool or suggest alternatives, hence the score.

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

All PreFlyte — DeFi Financial Intelligence for AI Agents 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

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool serves a distinct function: assess_opportunity is a holistic decision-maker, check_entry_viability and check_pool_viability target different domains (lending vs. DEX), and estimate_net_position provides a projection unlike get_market_snapshot's current state. Even overlapping tools like get_ranking and get_returns are differentiated by their output format and filtering.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (assess_opportunity, estimate_net_position, verify_claim) or verb_phrase (check_entry_viability, get_market_snapshot). The outlier is gas_timing, which uses a noun_gerund structure instead of starting with a verb, breaking the otherwise consistent convention.

Tool Count5/5

With 9 tools, the server is well-scoped for a DeFi intelligence platform. Each tool covers a distinct aspect—opportunity assessment, viability checks, projections, market snapshots, historical data, gas guidance, and claim verification—without unnecessary redundancy or bloat.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers core decision workflows: assess, check, estimate, snapshot, ranking, history, gas, and verification. Minor gaps include lack of a tool to list supported assets/protocols/chains and no swap projection tool to complement check_pool_viability, but agents can work around these.

Resources

Need Help?