Skip to main content
Glama

Aave

by com.aave.mcp

List a wallet's orders

get_pending_orders
Read-only

No version argument: orders run on the v4 backend, so this covers the chains that backend serves and names them under 'chainsCovered'; a chain under 'chainsNotCovered' could not be read and is worth asking about again. A wallet's orders, newest first. Despite the name it returns every status unless 'statuses' narrows it - pass ['open','pending_signature'] for what is still actionable. Each chain returns its newest 50 orders; 'more: true' on a chain means older history exists beyond what was returned. Use this to recover an orderId you no longer have.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
userYesWallet address, 0x-prefixed (40 hex chars).
chainIdsNoOptional: chain ids to read. Omit the argument entirely to sweep every chain the backend serves.
statusesNoOptional: statuses to keep. Omit the argument entirely for all of them.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only signal read-only; the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: v4 backend chain coverage, chainsCovered/chainsNotCovered fields, newest-first ordering, status filtering semantics, 50-order per-chain cap, and more:true pagination signal. This is exactly the contextual detail an agent needs without an output schema.

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?

Four sentences with no filler; every sentence covers a distinct useful point (backend coverage, ordering, status semantics, pagination, use case). The main caveat is front-loaded before the details, and the recovery use case closes it cleanly.

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?

With no output schema, the description explains the key response concepts (chainsCovered, chainsNotCovered, more) and scoping behavior, leaving only parameter mechanics already documented in the schema. The tool is complete enough for an agent to call it and interpret the result.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value by prescribing the statuses array ['open','pending_signature'] for actionable orders and explaining that omitting chainIds sweeps the served chains through back-end coverage language. This supplements the schema descriptions rather than repeating them.

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?

States a specific action on a clear resource: lists a wallet's orders, newest first, and explicitly corrects the name by saying it returns every status unless filtered. This differentiates it from single-order siblings like get_order_status and from prepare/submit order tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives concrete usage: pass ['open','pending_signature'] for actionable orders and use the tool to recover a lost orderId. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, though the recovery use case implies when this list is preferred.

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