Skip to main content
Glama

Aave

by com.aave.mcp

Get user activity / transaction history

get_user_activity
Read-only

A wallet's Aave transaction history (supply, borrow, repay, withdraw, collateral changes) on v3, v4, or both. Most recent first. v4 covers every chain; v3 reads one market on one chain at a time, because upstream paginates per market, so it states its scope as 'chainsCovered' and 'market' and you pass chainId to read another. Use get_user_positions, not this, to find out where a wallet holds anything.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
userYesWallet address, 0x-prefixed (40 hex chars).
cursorNoPagination cursor (pageInfo.next from a previous call). Requires an explicit version ('v3' or 'v4'): a cursor belongs to one version's feed.
marketNov3 only, optional: market pool address (defaults to the chain's main market).
chainIdNoChain id to restrict to, e.g. 1 for Ethereum. Omit the argument entirely to cover every chain.
versionNoProtocol version (default all).

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, and the description adds useful behavioral context: results are newest-first, v4 covers all chains, v3 is market-scoped due to upstream pagination, and cursors are tied to a version. It could go further by describing the return item shape, but it goes well beyond the annotation baseline.

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 dense sentences with no filler: purpose and ordering are front-loaded, v3/v4 scope is explained efficiently, and the alternative tool is pointed to last. The complexity justifies the length.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and lack of an output schema, the description covers event types, ordering, chain/version scope, pagination behavior, and when to use a sibling tool. The main omission is an explicit statement of the return structure, but an agent has enough to select and invoke it correctly.

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% and each parameter already has a meaningful description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic value by explaining the v3/v4 scope model and why chainId/market/version interact, which helps an agent choose the right combination of parameters.

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 wallet's Aave transaction history, enumerates the event types, and names the supported protocol versions. It also distinguishes itself from get_user_positions, so an agent can tell which tool answers which 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?

It explicitly says when not to use this tool ('Use get_user_positions, not this') and gives detailed scope behavior for v3 vs v4, including how chainId and market interact. This is actionable routing guidance, not just a restatement of purpose.

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