get_startedApplies to both versions. What this Aave server can do: the tool families, the ready-made prompts, and the guide topics. Call this when an Aave conversation opens with no specific request and answer from it, rather than guessing from tool names.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context: it applies to both versions, it returns an overview of tool families, prompts, and guide topics, and it is meant to be the source for an initial response. No contradiction exists between the description and annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded, with the key orientation purpose stated in the first sentence. Every sentence adds value: scope, content, and the exact trigger condition for use.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter informational tool, the description is complete: it names the content covered, the versions it applies to, when to call it, and how to use the returned information. The absence of an output schema is acceptable because the tool's output is described at a high level as an answer source.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there is no parameter ambiguity. With no parameters, the description does not need to explain parameter meaning; the baseline score of 4 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that this tool is an orientation resource for the Aave connector, covering tool families, ready-made prompts, and guide topics. It distinguishes itself from the many specific get_/prepare_/preview_ siblings by positioning itself as the entry point when no specific request exists.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly instructs the agent to call this tool when an Aave conversation opens with no specific request and to answer from its content. It also warns against guessing from tool names, which is a clear routing rule against using the alternative specific tools prematurely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
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.
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.