Skip to main content
Glama

spectra_scan_yt_arbitrage

Identify yield token arbitrage opportunities on Spectra chains by comparing IBT APR with YT implied rate. Results sorted by spread with capital-aware sizing and break-even analysis.

Instructions

Scan all Spectra chains for YT (Yield Token) arbitrage opportunities.

Compares the IBT's actual current variable APR against the rate implied by the YT's market price. When these diverge significantly, an arbitrage opportunity may exist:

  • Positive spread (IBT APR > YT implied rate): IBT earns more than the YT price implies

  • Negative spread (IBT APR < YT implied rate): IBT earns less than the YT price implies

Returns opportunities sorted by absolute spread, with capital-aware entry sizing, break-even analysis, IBT APR composition (organic base yield vs external incentive programs — critical for assessing whether the spread is driven by sustainable yield), and external Merkl campaign APR when available.

Execution mechanics:

  • Buying YT: The Spectra Router can flash-mint (flash-borrow IBT → mint PT+YT → sell PT on pool → user covers shortfall → user receives YT). This appears as SELL_PT in pool activity. Alternatively, minting IBT → PT+YT and selling PT separately.

  • Selling YT: The Router flash-redeems (borrow IBT → buy PT from pool → burn PT+YT → repay → profit). This appears as BUY_PT in pool activity. The Curve pool does NOT trade YT directly.

  • Break-even assumes the spread persists. Real variable rates fluctuate — spreads can close quickly. The break-even period is the minimum time needed, not a guarantee.

Use spectra_compare_yield for a detailed fixed-vs-variable breakdown on a specific pool. Use spectra_get_pool_activity to monitor recent trading patterns in the target pool.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
capital_usdYesHow much capital (in USD) to deploy
min_spread_pctNoMinimum absolute spread (%) to surface (default 1.0)
asset_filterNoOptional: filter by underlying asset symbol (e.g., 'USDC', 'ETH')
min_tvl_usdNoMinimum pool TVL in USD (default $10,000)
min_liquidity_usdNoMinimum pool liquidity in USD (default $5,000)
max_price_impact_pctNoFilter out pools where entry impact exceeds this % (default 5)
top_nNoNumber of top results to return (default 10, max 50)
compactNoIf true, return one-line-per-opportunity output (much shorter). Omit for full details.
ve_spectra_balanceNoYour veSPECTRA token balance. Computes the real per-pool boost using B = min(2.5, 1.5*(v/V)*(D/d)+1). Fetches live totalSupply from Base chain.
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the spread calculation, break-even assumptions, rate fluctuation risks, and execution mechanics. However, it does not explicitly state if the tool is read-only or requires authentication.

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-structured with clear sections but is somewhat lengthy. Every sentence adds value, though the execution mechanics section could be slightly trimmed without losing clarity.

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?

Given no output schema, the description thoroughly explains return values: opportunities sorted by spread with capital-aware sizing, break-even analysis, IBT APR composition, and Merkl campaign APR. It also provides execution context and risk notes, making it complete.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description provides high-level context for parameters but does not add detailed meaning beyond what the input schema already provides. It explains concepts like spread and capital-aware entry sizing, which indirectly inform parameter use.

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 scans all Spectra chains for YT arbitrage opportunities by comparing IBT APR vs YT implied rate. It distinguishes itself from siblings like spectra_compare_yield and spectra_get_pool_activity.

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 mentions when to use this tool and provides alternatives: 'Use spectra_compare_yield for a detailed fixed-vs-variable breakdown on a specific pool. Use spectra_get_pool_activity to monitor recent trading patterns.' It also covers execution mechanics.

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