Skip to main content
Glama

t2000_all_rates

Compare interest rates across all protocols side-by-side for every asset to determine if you're getting the best rate or need to rebalance assets.

Instructions

Compare interest rates across ALL protocols side-by-side for every asset. Shows NAVI vs Suilend rates per asset. Use when the user asks "am I getting the best rate?" or wants to compare protocols. NOTE: Do NOT use this to decide where to save — t2000_save always saves USDC at the best USDC rate. This tool is for informational comparisons and for deciding whether to t2000_rebalance into a different asset.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • The 't2000_all_rates' tool is registered and implemented in 'packages/mcp/src/tools/read.ts'. It uses the agent's 'allRatesAcrossAssets()' method to fetch and return the interest rates.
    server.tool(
      't2000_all_rates',
      'Compare interest rates across ALL protocols side-by-side for every asset. Shows NAVI vs Suilend rates per asset. Use when the user asks "am I getting the best rate?" or wants to compare protocols. NOTE: Do NOT use this to decide where to save — t2000_save always saves USDC at the best USDC rate. This tool is for informational comparisons and for deciding whether to t2000_rebalance into a different asset.',
      {},
      async () => {
        try {
          const result = await agent.allRatesAcrossAssets();
          return { content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(result) }] };
        } catch (err) {
          return errorResult(err);
        }
      },
    );
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavioral traits: the tool is for informational comparisons only, not for executing actions like saving or rebalancing. It mentions comparing specific protocols (NAVI vs Suilend) and assets, but lacks details on rate calculation methods, update frequency, or data sources. The description is consistent and adds useful context beyond the input schema.

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 concise and well-structured: three sentences that front-load the purpose, provide usage guidelines, and clarify exclusions. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it easy for an AI agent to parse and apply.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (comparing rates across protocols and assets) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and behavioral constraints. However, it does not detail the output format (e.g., table structure, data fields) or potential limitations (e.g., rate freshness, availability of all assets), leaving some gaps for an AI agent to infer.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds value by explaining the tool's scope and constraints (e.g., comparing all protocols and assets, NAVI vs Suilend), which compensates for the lack of parameters. It provides semantic context that the schema alone cannot convey.

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: 'Compare interest rates across ALL protocols side-by-side for every asset. Shows NAVI vs Suilend rates per asset.' It specifies the verb ('compare'), resource ('interest rates'), scope ('all protocols, every asset'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like t2000_rates by emphasizing comprehensive comparison.

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 provides explicit usage guidelines: 'Use when the user asks "am I getting the best rate?" or wants to compare protocols.' It also specifies when NOT to use it: 'Do NOT use this to decide where to save — t2000_save always saves USDC at the best USDC rate.' It names alternatives (t2000_save, t2000_rebalance) and clarifies the tool's informational purpose.

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/mission69b/t2000'

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