PreFlyte — DeFi Financial Intelligence for AI Agents

get_ranking

Get ranked list of best DeFi lending returns, sorted by net APY.

Args:
    api_key: Your PreFlyte API key (required).
    window_days: Return window — 7, 14, 30, or 90 days. Default 7.
    strategy: "supply" or "borrow". Default "supply".
    top_n: Number of top results. Default 10, max 30.

Returns:
    Ranked list with position number, net_apy_pct, gross_apy_pct,
    gas details, and data completeness scores.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`top_n`	No
`api_key`	Yes
`strategy`	No	supply
`window_days`	No

Schema Changelog

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

First observedApr 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns a list with position number, net_apy_pct, gross_apy_pct, gas details, and data completeness scores. It also requires an api_key. However, it does not mention potential error conditions, rate limits, or that it is read-only, though 'get' implies no side effects.

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 organized with a purpose sentence, an Args section, and a Returns section. Each line is necessary and adds value. It is efficient without being terse.

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?

With no output schema, the Returns section explicitly lists the output fields. All parameters are covered with defaults and constraints. Missing details like edge-case behavior (e.g., empty results) and error handling are minor, making it nearly complete.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully explains all four parameters with allowed values (window_days: 7,14,30,90; strategy: supply/borrow), defaults, and max for top_n. This is excellent compensation.

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 'Get ranked list of best DeFi lending returns, sorted by net APY,' with a specific resource (DeFi lending returns) and sorting criterion. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_returns, which would likely provide unranked returns.

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 a clear context for when to use this tool (when a ranked list is desired), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. Given sibling tools exist, explicit differentiation would earn a 5, but the context is clear enough.

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?