Skip to main content
Glama

Aave

by com.aave.mcp

Aave protocol & usage guide

get_aave_guide
Read-only

Applies to both versions. Protocol and usage guidance for building Aave flows correctly. Read the relevant topic before constructing an action. Topics: overview, v4, v3, positions, health-factor, risks, ids, amounts, prices, signing, swaps, gho, governance, rewards, tools, docs. Also the place to come when no tool seems to fit what you were asked for: send 'lookingFor' and this answers with the full capability list rather than leaving you to guess from tool names. For deep protocol docs, point the user to https://docs.aave.com.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
topicNoGuide topic (default overview). Read 'v3' or 'v4' before building an action on that version.
lookingForNoSend this when you looked for a tool to do something and did not find one, or when a flow dead-ended: describe what you were trying to do, in a few words. It returns the full capability list so you can check whether it exists under a name you did not guess, and records the gap when it does not. Omit the argument entirely when you already know which topic you want.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation is consistent with the described read-only purpose. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: it applies to both protocol versions, explains that 'lookingFor' returns the full capability list, and notes that gaps are recorded when a capability does not exist.

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 slightly long but every sentence contributes value: scope, purpose, usage timing, topic list, fallback behavior, and external docs. Information is front-loaded with the core purpose before the topic enumeration.

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?

Given the simple two-parameter schema, the strong readOnlyHint annotation, and the absence of an output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to use the tool correctly. It explains the fallback 'lookingFor' behavior, the topic list, and external documentation routing without leaving critical gaps.

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 adds some usage context for both parameters, especially the 'lookingFor' fallback behavior, but it largely reinforces what the schema already documents rather than adding meaningfully new semantics.

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 a specific purpose: providing protocol and usage guidance for building Aave flows correctly. It distinguishes itself from data-fetching sibling tools by explicitly positioning itself as the place to go when no tool seems to fit the request.

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 usage direction: read the relevant topic before constructing an action, use the 'lookingFor' argument when no other tool fits, and redirect users to external docs for deep protocol documentation. This clearly tells the agent when and how to select this tool versus alternatives.

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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

The tool set is organized into clear read/prepare/action families, and cross-references like get_user_positions vs get_user_summary or get_markets vs get_reserve_details keep purposes distinct. A couple of generic names—prepare_action vs prepare_order, preview_action vs prepare_action—could cause misselection, but the descriptions explicitly separate them.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names overwhelmingly follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern: get_* for reads, prepare_* for transaction builders, plus cancel_order and submit_signed_order. The pattern is consistent overall, though a few generic exceptions like get_started, get_aave_guide, and preview_action break the strict resource-noun convention.

Tool Count2/5

With 40 tools, the set is well past the 25+ threshold and feels heavy even though the domain is broad. Most tools are distinct and justified, but an agent must navigate a very large list, and the server could reasonably be split into protocol, governance, and swap/order surfaces.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers v3/v4 reads, positions, health factors, simulations, transaction building, collateral, eMode, liquidation, rewards, sGHO, swaps/orders, and governance proposal reads, with clear sequencing between preview, prepare, and submit. Minor gaps exist—governance has no voting transaction and stkGHO balance/cooldown state is not readable—but they do not block the core Aave workflows.

Resources