Skip to main content
Glama

Aave

by com.aave.mcp

Get user rewards

get_user_rewards
Read-only

A wallet's claimable Aave rewards on v3, v4, or both. Covers incentive programmes distributed through Merit as well as the protocol's own, so a GHO or sGHO incentive shows up here rather than anywhere separate. Omit chainId and both versions cover every chain they serve, stating which under 'chainsCovered' and tagging each row with its own chainId. 'chainsNotServed', when present, lists chains this API holds no market on: Aave supports the chain, there is nothing here to read, so an empty result for one of them is not an answer about that chain, and asking again returns the same nothing. On v3 the response also carries the transaction that claims them.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
userYesWallet address, 0x-prefixed (40 hex chars).
chainIdNoChain id to restrict to, e.g. 1 for Ethereum. Omit the argument entirely to cover every chain.
versionNoProtocol version (default all).

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Read-only intent matches the readOnlyHint annotation. The description adds important behavior beyond the annotation: chainsCovered vs chainsNotServed semantics, that empty results for unserved chains are not answers about those chains and stay empty on retry, and that the v3 response also carries the claiming transaction.

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?

Front-loaded with a clear one-sentence purpose. Subsequent sentences earn their place by explaining edge cases, but the chainsNotServed explanation is slightly verbose and could be tightened.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only rewards lookup with no output schema, the description covers the main input behaviors, output fields (chainsCovered, chainsNotServed, row chainId), and a version-specific return detail. It does not enumerate the exact reward amount/asset fields, so agents still have some ambiguity about the response shape.

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 already documents all three parameters at 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that omitting chainId covers all served chains, that version can be v3/v4/all, and that output rows are tagged with their own chainId.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a clear verb and resource: a wallet's claimable Aave rewards, scoped to v3, v4, or both. It also positions itself as the endpoint where GHO/sGHO incentives appear, though it does not name specific sibling tools for contrast.

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 clear context on when to call it: for claimable Aave rewards across Merit and protocol incentive programmes, saying such rewards show up here rather than elsewhere. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use it or name alternate tools like prepare_claim_rewards.

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