Skip to main content
Glama

Aave

by com.aave.mcp

Aave protocol & usage guide

get_aave_guide
Read-only

Applies to both versions. Protocol and usage guidance for building Aave flows correctly. Read the relevant topic before constructing an action. Topics: overview, v4, v3, positions, health-factor, risks, ids, amounts, prices, signing, swaps, gho, governance, rewards, tools, docs. Also the place to come when no tool seems to fit what you were asked for: send 'lookingFor' and this answers with the full capability list rather than leaving you to guess from tool names. For deep protocol docs, point the user to https://docs.aave.com.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
topicNoGuide topic (default overview). Read 'v3' or 'v4' before building an action on that version.
lookingForNoSend this when you looked for a tool to do something and did not find one, or when a flow dead-ended: describe what you were trying to do, in a few words. It returns the full capability list so you can check whether it exists under a name you did not guess, and records the gap when it does not. Omit the argument entirely when you already know which topic you want.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive; the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it applies to both v3 and v4, returns the full capability list for lookingFor, records gaps when a capability is missing, and points users to external docs for deep protocol details. This is useful context for an agent deciding how to use the result.

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 four sentences in a logical order: scope, guidance, topics, fallback, and external docs. It could be tighter because the topic list duplicates the schema enum, but every sentence serves a functional purpose and the most important guidance is front-loaded.

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?

For a read-only guide with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough to select and invoke it: when to read, what topics exist, how lookingFor behaves, and where to send users for deeper docs. A minor gap is not explicitly stating the return format, but 'answers' and 'returns the full capability list' imply textual guidance.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description does not need to carry parameter documentation. It reinforces topic usage and adds a small behavioral detail for lookingFor ('records the gap'), but it largely repeats the schema's enum and descriptions. Value added is modest but real.

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 identifies a specific role: a protocol and usage guide for building Aave flows correctly, with a fallback for capability discovery when no tool fits. The verbs 'read' and 'guide' plus the resource 'Aave protocol' are explicit, and the 'no tool seems to fit' behavior distinguishes it from the many data/action siblings.

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 gives concrete when-to-use triggers: read a topic before constructing an action, and send 'lookingFor' when no tool seems to fit or a flow dead-ends. It also directs deep-documentation cases to docs.aave.com. It does not explicitly contrast with get_started or state when not to use this tool, but the guidance is actionable.

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

All Aave toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

The tool set splits into clean families (get_ reads, prepare_ transaction builders, direct state-changing verbs) and the descriptions aggressively cross-reference each other to draw explicit boundaries, e.g. get_user_positions vs get_user_summary vs get_user_activity. A few clusters could still prompt misselection: the four get_user_* tools share a naming shape, get_started and get_aave_guide both claim the 'when nothing fits' role, and get_hub_assets vs get_markets both return rate data at different aggregation levels.

Naming Consistency5/5

Every tool follows a verb_noun pattern with a highly predictable convention: get_ for all read operations, prepare_ for every unsigned-transaction builder, and direct imperatives (cancel_order, submit_signed_order, preview_action) for the rest. search_governance_proposals is the only read not named get_, but search_ is semantically apt for full-text lookup. The get_/ prepare_ split is instantly legible across all 40 tools.

Tool Count2/5

40 tools is well past the 25+ 'too many' threshold, and even Aave's genuinely wide scope (v3 and v4 lending, governance, sGHO, rewards, intent orders) does not fully justify the surface. get_started and get_aave_guide overlap as guidance entry points, the three history tools and the get_user_* cluster add near-duplicate reads, and the paragraph-long descriptions compound the agent's context burden. Most tools earn their place individually, but the set would be stronger consolidated to roughly 25-30 tools.

Completeness4/5

Core workflows are fully covered with no dead ends: preview_action simulation, prepare_action and prepare_set_* builders, get_transaction_processed polling, plus the complete order lifecycle (quote, prepare, submit, status, cancel) and sGHO/rewards coverage. Minor gaps remain: governance is read-only with no way to cast a vote, the server cannot read a stkGHO balance or cooldown state for the migration flow, and there is no stkAAVE staking surface. These are workaroundable, and the v3/v4 dual-version handling is unusually thorough.

Resources