Skip to main content
Glama

mv_plan_rollover

Automates planning rollovers for expiring MetaVault positions by scanning Spectra and Pendle, estimating transition costs, timing entry, and ranking candidates by net effective APY.

Instructions

Plan position rollovers for expiring MetaVault positions.

When a MetaVault position approaches maturity, the curator must: (1) identify the next pool, (2) estimate transition costs, (3) time the entry, (4) execute the rollover.

This tool automates steps 1-3 by scanning Spectra and Pendle for rollover candidates matching the expiring position's underlying asset, computing entry impact at the position's capital size, and ranking by effective APY.

Returns per expiring position: ranked list of rollover candidates with entry impact, yield gap (days of zero yield during transition), overlap window (if entering before old matures), and net effective APY after transition costs.

Use spectra_get_curator_dashboard to see which positions are approaching maturity. Use mv_scan_curator_opportunities for broader cross-protocol opportunity discovery. Use spectra_get_pool_capacity to assess depth at your capital size for specific candidates.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainYesThe blockchain network where the MetaVault lives.
metavault_addressYesThe MetaVault contract address. Use spectra_list_metavaults to discover addresses.
pt_addressNoSpecific position PT address to plan rollover for. If omitted, plans for all positions expiring within 30 days.
max_maturity_daysNoPlan rollovers for positions expiring within this many days (default 30). Ignored when pt_address is specified.
capital_usdNoOverride position size for impact calculation. If omitted, uses the position's current allocation.
top_nNoNumber of top rollover candidates per position (default 5).
include_loopingNoWhether to check Morpho looping availability for candidates (default true).
verify_onchainNoPre-flight halt-check on the SOURCE MetaVault before showing rollover candidates. Off by default — the candidate ranking does NOT depend on chain-truth (it ranks on candidate pool liquidity + lpApy, not source TVL). When true, reads the source vault's Safe + infraVault + secondaryVault via the same engine that powers spectra_get_curator_dashboard (5-min cache shared with the dashboard, so a curator who just rendered the dashboard hits cache for free). A halt-check line at the top of the output flags catastrophic / topology-shifted conditions (paused, role-inversion, missing bytecode, broken accounting, wrapper-signature-broken) that should make the curator pause before executing any rollover. Failures degrade to [✗] — the candidate listing still renders. Dissolution: if telemetry shows zero verify_onchain=true invocations within 60 days of ship, the flag is fossil.
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains automation of steps 1-3, scanning sources, ranking by effective APY, and details the behavior of the verify_onchain parameter. Lacks disclosure of potential failure modes or data freshness, but overall transparent.

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?

Front-loaded main purpose, well-structured with bullet points for steps, clear return description, and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, no fluff.

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?

No output schema, but description explains return values (ranked list with entry impact, yield gap, etc.). Addresses 8 parameters adequately. Slight gap on error handling or edge cases, but sufficient for task understanding.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions. Description adds meaning beyond schema: explains pt_address omission defaults, max_maturity_days behavior, and provides extensive detail for verify_onchain. Additional context for parameter interactions.

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 it plans rollovers for expiring MetaVault positions, using a specific verb 'plan' and resource 'rollover'. It distinguishes from siblings like spectra_get_curator_dashboard and mv_scan_curator_opportunities.

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?

Explicitly provides when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, listing three sibling tools with specific use cases: spectra_get_curator_dashboard for seeing approaching maturity, mv_scan_curator_opportunities for broader discovery, and spectra_get_pool_capacity for depth assessment.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Finanzgoblin/spectra-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server