Aave

Get reserve details

get_reserve_details

Read-only

Deep detail for a single reserve (rates, caps, risk parameters, utilisation, the interest-rate curve, token addresses) on v3 or v4. Every rate and percentage is a percent ('3.32' means 3.32%), named with a Pct suffix. On v4, utilisation and the rate curve are hub-wide, shared by every spoke drawing on the asset. Two v4 fields whose meaning the numbers do not give away: 'collateralFactorPct' is the liquidation boundary itself, because v4 has no separate liquidation threshold - do not look for one - so a position drawn to its full borrow limit sits at health factor 1.0; and 'liquidityFeePct' is the protocol's share of borrower interest, already netted out of supplyApyPct, so treating it as a user cost double-counts it (supplyApy = borrowApy x utilisation x (1 - liquidityFee), if you want to check). Use get_markets first to get the reserveId (v4) or market+token (v3).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`token`	No	v3 only: underlying token address.
`market`	No	v3 only: market pool address (from get_markets).
`chainId`	No	v3 only: chain id (positive integer).
`reserve`	No	v4 only: reserveId (from get_markets).
`version`	Yes	Protocol version (v3 or v4; required).

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Despite readOnlyHint=true already covering the safety profile, the description adds substantial behavioral detail: all percentages are literal percents with Pct suffix, v4 utilisation and rate curve are hub-wide, collateralFactorPct is the liquidation boundary with no separate threshold, and liquidityFeePct is already netted out of supplyApyPct. This materially prevents misinterpretation of returned data.

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?

The description is long but densely informative, and every sentence earns its place. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by unit semantics, v4-specific interpretation pitfalls, and a sourcing prerequisite. Nothing is padded or redundant given the complexity of the tool and the absence of an output schema.

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 must carry the burden of explaining what the tool returns, and it does: field categories, unit conventions, v4 hub-wide behavior, and the two non-obvious v4 field meanings. It also covers the required input acquisition path via get_markets, making it complete for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter, including v3-only vs v4-only. The description adds some value by telling the agent to source reserveId or market+token from get_markets, and by explaining output unit conventions, but most parameter-level meaning already lives in the schema.

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 opens with 'Deep detail for a single reserve' and names the specific resource and the exact categories it returns (rates, caps, risk parameters, utilisation, interest-rate curve, token addresses). It also disambiguates v3 vs v4, making it clearly distinct from list-oriented siblings like get_markets.

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?

The description gives explicit context about when to use the tool and how to prepare inputs: 'Use get_markets first to get the reserveId (v4) or market+token (v3).' It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for related data, but the prerequisite and version-specific param sourcing provide clear operational guidance.

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

A4.1/5.0

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

Need Help?