Aave

Prepare an eMode change (v3)

prepare_set_emode

Read-only

v3 only. Build an unsigned transaction to switch a wallet's Aave v3 eMode category. eMode groups correlated assets (ETH-correlated, stablecoins) so they borrow against each other at a higher LTV, raising borrowing power at the cost of restricting which assets the position may hold. Take categoryId from get_emode_categories for that market; pass 0 to turn eMode off. v3 only: v4 replaces eMode with risk premium and dynamic config.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`market`	Yes	v3 only: market pool address, from a get_markets row in this session. It cannot be recalled: an Aave pool address you already recognise belongs to another deployment (v2, or another chain) and is rejected.
`sender`	Yes	Sender wallet address, 0x-prefixed (40 hex chars).
`chainId`	Yes	Chain id (positive integer).
`version`	No	Optional, and only 'v3': this tool exists on v3 only.
`categoryId`	Yes	eMode categoryId from get_emode_categories, or 0 to disable.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it builds an unsigned transaction rather than submitting it, and explains the LTV/borrowing-power consequences of eMode. It does not explicitly state that the produced transaction should later be submitted, but 'unsigned' conveys the key limitation.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the critical 'v3 only' constraint. It earns its length by explaining eMode's purpose and consequences. Minor redundancy: 'v3 only' appears at both the start and the end.

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?

The description covers the essential context needed to call the tool: v3 scope, prerequisite data sources, categoryId semantics, and the transaction-building behavior. It does not describe the exact return shape, but since there is no output schema and the purpose is clear, this is a minor gap.

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 all parameters. The description adds some contextual value by linking categoryId to the specific market and reiterating that 0 disables eMode, but most parameter-level detail is already present 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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Build an unsigned transaction to switch a wallet's Aave v3 eMode category.' It also scopes the tool to v3 and explains what eMode means, making its purpose unambiguous and distinct from other prepare_* tools.

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 says 'v3 only,' explains that v4 replaces eMode with risk premium and dynamic config, and tells the agent where to get categoryId (get_emode_categories) and how to disable eMode (pass 0). This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use 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?