seneschal_get_borrowerReturns the latest known state of address across every protocol where we have data (Aave, Morpho, Spark). Pass the EOA / contract address as a 0x-prefixed 20-byte hex string.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes |
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns the 'latest known state,' implying a read-only snapshot, but does not elaborate on data freshness, error handling, or potential rate limits. The 'Returns' wording suggests a safe read operation, but additional context would improve transparency.
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 composed of two sentences, both front-loaded with critical information: what the tool returns and how to format the input. There is no redundant wording, and every sentence contributes value.
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 simple single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete: it specifies the protocols covered, the exact input format, and the nature of the return (latest known state). It does not describe response structure, but the tool's simplicity makes this acceptable.
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 schema provides only a pattern for the 'address' parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explicitly explains that the value should be an EOA or contract address formatted as a 0x-prefixed 20-byte hex string, adding meaning beyond the schema's technical pattern.
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 uses the specific verb 'Returns' and identifies the resource: the latest known state of a given address across all supported protocols (Aave, Morpho, Spark). It clearly differentiates from siblings such as seneschal_get_borrower_history (historical data) and seneschal_list_borrowers (multiple borrowers) by focusing on a single address's current snapshot.
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 clearly implies when to use this tool: to get a current snapshot for a specific address across all protocols. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'for history, use get_borrower_history'), but the context is unambiguous and sufficient for an agent to select it appropriately.
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.
Tools are grouped by domain (board, private_watch, zecmon) with clear lifecycle separation, but seneschal_list_at_risk_borrowers and seneschal_list_borrowers overlap heavily, and the USDC vs crypto variants of private_watch_create/topup could be confused without careful reading.
Most tools follow a seneschal_<domain>_<action> pattern, but verb/noun order varies (get_borrower vs list_borrowers vs board_list) and outliers like seneschal_health and seneschal_q break the pattern.
At 35 tools, the server is definitely heavy, but it covers multiple distinct domains (DeFi data, privacy-chain monitoring, notice boards, payments), so the count is at the high end of reasonable rather than absurdly bloated.
Core workflows are well covered: borrower discovery/analysis, liquidations, private watch lifecycle, Zcash scanning lifecycle, board operations, and checkout invoices. Minor gaps like board deletion or watch cancellation exist but are workaround-able.