submit_signed_orderNo version argument: every order runs on the v4 backend. Relay an order the user already signed (quoteId + signature from prepare_order's PreparedOrder). State-changing: this posts the order. The server never signs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| quoteId | Yes | quoteId (the newQuoteId returned by prepare_order). | |
| signature | Yes | The user's EIP-712 signature (0x...). |
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 mark this as non-read-only, idempotent, and destructive/state-changing, so the description adds useful specifics: it posts the order, never signs server-side, and always targets the v4 backend. This clarifies side-effect and security behavior beyond the structured hints.
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?
Three short sentences, each carrying useful information: version behavior, prerequisite input, and state-changing side effect. It is appropriately sized and front-loads an important constraint, though the 'No version argument' phrasing is slightly less direct than it could be.
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 two-parameter submit tool with no output schema, the description plus annotations cover the core behavior, inputs, and state-changing nature. It does not describe the return shape or post-submission status, but complexity is low and sibling get_order_status provides a follow-up path.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and both params already have meaningful descriptions (newQuoteId, EIP-712 signature). The description reinforces that these come from prepare_order's PreparedOrder, but adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description states a specific verb and resource: it relays/posts an already user-signed order. It clearly differentiates from prepare_order by requiring the quoteId+signature from prepare_order's PreparedOrder and by being the state-changing submission step. The sibling context includes many prepare_* tools, making this distinction essential and explicit.
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?
The description gives clear context: use this after prepare_order once the user has signed, because it relays the signature. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the reference to prepare_order's output makes the intended workflow evident.
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.