Skip to main content
Glama

compare_yields

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare supply yields for any asset across lending and staking protocols, 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?

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds extensive behavioral detail: output format, coverage gaps, null handling, sorting, and agent constraints. No contradictions with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is comprehensive but somewhat verbose, including future roadmap details (e.g., follow-up work) that may not be essential for agent execution. It is well-structured with clear sections but could be trimmed.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description thoroughly explains output fields, sorting, empty results, and agent behavior. It covers all edge cases and usage scenarios, making it fully actionable for an AI agent.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. The description adds valuable context beyond schema descriptions, such as the meaning of 'stables' meta-asset, default chains, and nuanced behaviors of minTvlUsd and riskCeiling with null values.

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 protocols. It specifies the verb (return), resource (yield opportunities), and scope (across lending/staking protocols). It distinguishes from siblings like estimate_staking_yield by focusing on comparison across multiple protocols.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool, including filters and defaults, and agent behavioral rules (e.g., 'do NOT pick a best option'). It lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tools like get_protocol_risk_score but still offers strong usage context.

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/vaultpilot-mcp'

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