Skip to main content
Glama

compare_yields

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve and compare supply-side yield rates for a given asset across multiple lending and staking protocols. Results are ranked by APR, with filters for chain, TVL, and risk score.

Instructions

READ-ONLY — return a ranked table of supply-side yield opportunities for a given asset across every integrated lending / staking protocol. v1 covers Aave V3 (5 EVM chains), Compound V3 (5 EVM chains, multi-market per chain), and Lido stETH (Ethereum only). Other protocols (Morpho Blue, MarginFi, Kamino, Marinade, Jito, EigenLayer, Solana native-stake) appear in the response's unavailable[] list with a coverage-gap reason — they need their wallet-less market readers split out from existing wallet-aware readers; tracked as follow-up work. Output per row: protocol, chain, market (free-form: 'cUSDCv3' for Compound, the asset symbol for Aave, 'stETH' for Lido), supplyApr (current, fractional 0.0481 = 4.81%), supplyApy (continuously-compounded), tvl (USD, may be null when the upstream doesn't expose it cheaply), riskScore (0-100 from get_protocol_risk_score, may be null), notes (pause flags, frozen reserves, etc.). Rows are sorted by supplyApr descending; null APR sinks. Filters: chains (default = all EVM mainnets + Solana); minTvlUsd (rows with tvl: null are NOT filtered — no data ≠ tiny market); riskCeiling (only show protocols at LEAST this safe; rows with riskScore: null are NOT filtered). Empty result returns emptyResultReason explaining whether nothing matched at all vs. everything filtered out. AGENT BEHAVIOR: this tool surfaces data; it does NOT pick. Surface the comparison verbatim. Do NOT pick a 'best' option for the user — they decide. The plan's positioning is explicit: 'Here are current supply rates' is right; 'I recommend depositing in X' is OUT.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
assetYesAsset to compare supply yields for. 'stables' is a meta-asset that expands to USDC + USDT (the two stables every adapter knows). 'ETH' resolves to WETH on EVM lending markets (the wrapped form). 'BTC' resolves to WBTC on EVM. 'SOL' is native on Solana protocols.
chainsNoRestrict to specific chains. Default: all integrated EVM chains + Solana. BTC / LTC have no integrated lending so they return empty — pass them only if you specifically want to confirm the empty result.
minTvlUsdNoMinimum supply-side TVL in USD; rows below the bar are filtered. Rows where TVL is unknown (the upstream didn't expose it) are NOT filtered — surfaced honestly with `tvl: null` so the agent can flag the gap.
riskCeilingNoMinimum protocol risk score (0-100; higher = safer per `get_protocol_risk_score`). Despite the name 'ceiling', the comparison is `score >= ceiling` — only show protocols at LEAST this safe. Rows where the score is unknown are NOT filtered (no data ≠ failed the bar).
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, etc.), the description details output format, sorting, null handling for TVL and riskScore, filtering behavior, and edge cases like empty results. It also explains v1 coverage gaps and agent constraints (do not pick), providing significant additional context.

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 long but well-structured, starting with purpose, then detailing coverage, output, filters, and agent behavior. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the coverage gap explanation could be more succinct. It remains effectively scannable.

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 the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description is exceptionally complete: it explains all parameter behaviors, output format, sorting, null handling, and agent usage constraints. It fully compensates for the lack of an output schema.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description still adds value by explaining meta-asset 'stables', resolution rules (ETH→WETH), default chain behavior, and the nuanced filtering of null values for minTvlUsd and riskCeiling. This exceeds the schema's descriptions.

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 returns a ranked table of supply-side yield opportunities for a given asset across integrated lending/staking protocols. It specifies covered protocols, output fields, sorting, and filters, distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle individual protocols or positions.

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 implicitly differentiates this tool from others by emphasizing it surfaces data rather than recommending actions, but it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like get_protocol_risk_score or individual protocol yield tools. It provides clear filter guidance and agent behavior constraints.

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/szhygulin/recon-crypto-mcp'

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