Skip to main content
Glama

Aave

by com.aave.mcp

Has Aave seen my transaction yet?

get_transaction_processed
Read-only

v4 only. After sending a transaction, ask whether the Aave API has processed it. Use this instead of sleeping or polling an RPC: the API lags the chain, and prepare_action will not issue a dependent follow-up (the supply after an approval, the withdraw after a repay) until it has caught up. Pass the txHash you sent plus the 'operations' array that came back on that transaction. Poll until processed is true, then continue.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
txHashYesTransaction hash you broadcast (0x...).
versionNoOptional, and only 'v4': this tool exists on v4 only.
operationsYesThe 'operations' from the transaction the server built, e.g. ['SPOKE_SUPPLY'].

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, and the description adds useful behavioral context: the API lags the chain, prepare_action will block follow-ups until processing catches up, and the tool should be polled until processed becomes true. This effectively communicates the return semantics without an output schema. It stops short of describing error or timeout behavior, but that is not a major gap for this polling tool.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The v4-only constraint is front-loaded, followed by the purpose, usage rationale, and concrete invocation guidance. Every sentence earns its place and the description is easy to scan.

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?

For a simple read-only polling tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, this description is complete. It explains when to use it, why it is needed, what inputs to pass, and how to interpret the result ('poll until processed is true'). The annotations cover the safety profile, so no critical operational detail is missing.

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 the parameters are already documented. The description adds meaningful operational context beyond the schema by specifying that txHash should be the hash you sent and operations should be the array that came back on that transaction. It also clarifies that the expected usage is polling, which gives the parameters a clear role in the workflow.

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 states a specific verb and resource: ask whether the Aave API has processed a transaction. It clearly differentiates this from generic RPC polling and related tools by naming prepare_action's dependency on this check. The title reinforces the purpose as a clarifying question.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it: after sending a transaction, before issuing a dependent follow-up. It also names the alternatives it replaces (sleeping or polling an RPC) and explains why, giving the agent a clear decision rule. The instruction to pass the txHash and operations array and poll until processed is true is concrete.

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