Aave

Prepare an eMode change (v3)

prepare_set_emode

Read-only

v3 only. Build an unsigned transaction to switch a wallet's Aave v3 eMode category. eMode groups correlated assets (ETH-correlated, stablecoins) so they borrow against each other at a higher LTV, raising borrowing power at the cost of restricting which assets the position may hold. Take categoryId from get_emode_categories for that market; pass 0 to turn eMode off. v3 only: v4 replaces eMode with risk premium and dynamic config.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`market`	Yes	v3 only: market pool address, from a get_markets row in this session. It cannot be recalled: an Aave pool address you already recognise belongs to another deployment (v2, or another chain) and is rejected.
`sender`	Yes	Sender wallet address, 0x-prefixed (40 hex chars).
`chainId`	Yes	Chain id (positive integer).
`version`	No	Optional, and only 'v3': this tool exists on v3 only.
`categoryId`	Yes	eMode categoryId from get_emode_categories, or 0 to disable.

Schema Changelog

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

First observedAug 31, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent: building an unsigned transaction implies no state change. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations, including the eMode LTV/restriction tradeoff, the v3-only constraint, and the categoryId=0 disable behavior.

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 front-loaded with the version and core action, and the eMode explanation is valuable. It loses a point for repeating 'v3 only' twice and for slightly over-explaining, but it remains compact and purposeful.

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 tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context to select and invoke it appropriately: purpose, version constraints, category source, and zero-to-disable behavior. It does not describe the output shape, but 'unsigned transaction' gives a reasonable expectation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mostly restates what the schema already says for categoryId ('from get_emode_categories, or 0 to disable') and does not add substantial new parameter-specific meaning beyond the explanatory eMode context.

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: 'Build an unsigned transaction to switch a wallet's Aave v3 eMode category.' It also clearly scopes the tool to v3 and distinguishes eMode from other Aave actions, so an agent can tell this apart from prepare_set_collateral or prepare_action.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: 'v3 only', 'v4 replaces eMode', and 'Take categoryId from get_emode_categories for that market; pass 0 to turn eMode off.' This tells the agent the prerequisite data source and the disabling behavior clearly.

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

All Aave tools Inspect

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

Need Help?