Aave

Get swappable chains and tokens

get_swappable_tokens

Read-only

No version argument: token swaps are protocol-agnostic and run on the v4 backend, so they cover the chains that backend serves rather than every chain Aave has a market on. Call this before get_swap_quote to see where a swap can be quoted: with no arguments it sweeps the chains v4 serves and returns each one with how many tokens are swappable there, which is the cheap answer; pass 'chainIds' to get the actual token list, and to ask about a chain the sweep does not reach. A chain under 'chainsNotCovered' could not be read and is worth asking about again; a chain present with 0 swappable tokens answered, and the answer is that nothing can be swapped there. Per reserve, get_markets also returns 'canSwapFrom'.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chainIds`	No	Optional: chain ids to list tokens for. Omit the argument entirely to get every chain with a count instead of a token list.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses backend behavior (protocol-agnostic, v4 backend, coverage limited to chains that backend serves), response semantics (counts vs token lists, chainsNotCovered meaning, 0-token meaning), and how to interpret edge cases. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral context.

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?

Every sentence in the description earns its place: backend scope, invocation guidance, response interpretation, and sibling pointer. The most important usage detail is front-loaded, and there is no fluff or repetition.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers invocation modes, response interpretation, edge cases, and related tools. An agent has everything it needs to decide when and how to call this tool and to make sense of 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?

The schema already covers chainIds at 100%, including the omit-argument behavior, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining why you'd pass chainIds (to reach chains the sweep doesn't cover), the 'cheap answer' performance trade-off, and the resulting output difference. This meaningfully exceeds schema coverage.

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 specific verb ('get') and resource ('swappable chains and tokens') and clearly distinguishes itself from siblings: it is the cheap sweep for chains, while get_swap_quote is for actual quotes and get_markets returns per-reserve canSwapFrom. The behavior is unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly says to call this before get_swap_quote, explains when to call with no arguments (cheap sweep) versus with chainIds (get token lists, ask about unreached chains), and points to get_markets as an alternative for per-reserve data. This is direct, actionable usage 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?