PreFlyte — DeFi Financial Intelligence for AI Agents

estimate_net_position

Detailed financial estimate for a specific lending position — what will
I actually earn (or pay) after gas costs?

Combines current live rates, gas costs, and historical computed returns
to project net yield over a holding period.

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".
    position_size_usd: Amount in USD.
    duration_days: Intended holding period in days. Default 30.

Returns:
    Dictionary with position details, current snapshot, cost breakdown,
    projected return, historical context, and confidence level.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

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

Schema Changelog

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

First observedApr 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses the tool's behavior: it 'projects net yield' by combining live rates, gas costs, and historical returns. It also outlines information returned (position details, snapshot, cost breakdown, etc.). While it doesn't mention that this is a read-only operation or potential delays, the description gives a solid behavioral picture.

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 front-loaded with a clear question that defines the tool's value. The Args section is efficiently structured and each line adds necessary detail. The Returns section provides a high-level overview without unnecessary fluff. Every sentence earns its place.

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 a tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description gives a good end-to-end picture: purpose, parameters, and high-level return structure. It could be more complete by explicitly stating when to use this tool over siblings, and by specifying return format in more detail, but it is sufficient for basic selection.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does list all parameters with brief explanations, including the default for duration_days and examples for protocol, chain, and asset. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, though it could be more detailed (e.g., enumerating supported assets or chain values).

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: 'Detailed financial estimate for a specific lending position — what will I actually earn (or pay) after gas costs?' It specifies the verb (estimate), resource (net position), and unique angle (gas costs). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_returns or gas_timing, which focus on narrower aspects.

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 provides clear context: it is for estimating net yield over a holding period, combining live rates, gas, and historical returns. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the phrase 'Combines current live rates, gas costs, and historical computed returns' implies it is the comprehensive choice among specialized siblings. No exclusions are stated, but the context is sufficient.

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?