Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
DeFi Quant Multi-Protocol Yield & Risk API

DeFi Quant Multi-Protocol Yield & Risk API

by Pyrochem
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Pendle V2 Logit Curve & PT TWAP Slippage Analyzer

analyze_pendle_v2_logit_curve_and_twap
Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare Pendle V2 spot implied APY against the 15-minute geometric PT Oracle TWAP and simulate how a PT trade impacts the logit AMM curve.

Instructions

Use this tool when a user asks about Pendle V2 fixed yields (PT/YT), wants to compare Spot Implied APY against the 15-minute geometric PT Oracle TWAP, or needs to simulate how a large PT trade impacts the logit AMM curve (scalarRoot, lnFeeRateRoot).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "analyze_pendle_v2_logit_curve_and_twap"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
marketAddressNoPendle V2 Market contract address (defaults to flagship PT-sUSDe market)
simPtTradeSizeNoSimulated PT trade size to calculate logit curve price impact (default: 1000000)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.7

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered and the description need not repeat it. The description adds some useful specificity (the 15-min geometric TWAP window, the logit curve parameters being stress-tested). However, it never says whether the simulation is purely computational or whether market state is fetched live, nor what the analysis emits.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the three use cases are enumerated compactly. It is dense but not padded. Slightly heavy on parenthetical backticked identifiers, which mildly hurts scannability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With two optional parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back — APY figures, TWAP deviation, price impact at the simulated size — and it does not. It is adequate for deciding when to call, but an agent cannot anticipate the response shape or how to interpret the simulation results.

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%: `marketAddress` and `simPtTradeSize` are both documented, including defaults (flagship PT-sUSDe market, 1,000,000) and the exclusiveMinimum constraint. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific domain (Pendle V2) and concrete artifacts: Spot Implied APY, the 15-minute geometric PT Oracle TWAP, and the logit AMM curve parameters `scalarRoot` / `lnFeeRateRoot`. That is far more specific than the title. It falls short of 5 because it is phrased entirely as user-question triggers ("Use this tool when a user asks about...") rather than stating what the tool computes and 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?

Three concrete activation scenarios are given: PT/YT fixed yields, Spot-vs-TWAP comparison, and large-trade curve impact simulation. That is clear when-to-use guidance. It lacks any when-not condition or named alternative, though the siblings cover different protocols (Morpho, Ethena, Fluid, Sky, Euler) so there is little routing ambiguity to resolve.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools