Skip to main content
Glama

Aave

by com.aave.mcp

Preview an sGHO deposit or withdrawal

get_sgho_preview
Read-only

v3 only, Ethereum only. Convert between GHO and sGHO shares at the vault's current index, without building anything. Which unit 'amount' is in depends on the action: 'deposit' takes GHO and returns the shares it would mint; 'withdraw' takes sGHO SHARES and returns the GHO they would return. Call this with action 'withdraw' before prepare_sgho_action, because that withdrawal is denominated in shares and not in GHO - passing a GHO figure there withdraws the wrong amount. When quoting what a user-named amount converts to, use this preview rather than multiplying by the rate: the index moves.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionYes'deposit' converts GHO to shares; 'withdraw' converts shares to GHO.
amountYesAmount in main units (e.g. '10.5'): GHO when action is 'deposit', sGHO shares when it is 'withdraw'.
versionNoOptional, and only 'v3': this tool exists on v3 only.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: which unit 'amount' is in depends on the action, deposit returns minted shares, withdraw returns GHO, and the index moves. It does not contradict the annotations and meaningfully expands on the read-only nature.

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 dense but every sentence carries essential information: platform/version constraints, core conversion behavior, per-action unit semantics, workflow ordering with prepare_sgho_action, and the dynamic-index rationale. It is front-loaded and concise without wordiness.

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 moderate complexity, no output schema, and readOnlyHint annotation, the description is complete. It covers the action/amount relationship, the need to call it before prepare_sgho_action, and why previewing is preferable to manual rate multiplication, which is sufficient for safe and correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, but the description goes beyond it by explaining the key cross-parameter dependency: how to interpret 'amount' depends on 'action' (GHO for deposit, sGHO shares for withdraw). It also reinforces that 'version' is v3-only, which is useful despite the schema already covering it.

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 states a precise verb and resource: it converts between GHO and sGHO shares at the vault's current index, without building anything. It also distinguishes itself from prepare_sgho_action, so an agent can tell this is a read-only quote/preview tool.

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 explicitly tells the agent to call this with action 'withdraw' before prepare_sgho_action because that withdrawal is denominated in shares, and warns against passing a GHO figure there. It also directs the agent to use this preview instead of multiplying by the rate because the index moves, giving clear when-to-use vs. alternative guidance.

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