Skip to main content
Glama

Aave

by com.aave.mcp

Prepare an sGHO deposit or withdrawal

prepare_sgho_action
Read-only

v3 only, Ethereum only. Build an unsigned transaction to deposit GHO into the sGHO vault or withdraw from it. Non-custodial: the user's wallet signs and submits, so building one commits them to nothing. Choose sensible values, build it, and say what you chose rather than stopping to ask. Send only the arguments that apply and leave every other one out. On 'deposit', 'amount' is GHO. On 'withdraw', 'amount' is a number of sGHO SHARES, not GHO - get_sgho_preview converts - or pass max:true to redeem the whole position and omit 'amount'. 'recipient' is only for sending the result to a different address than the sender. A deposit needs a GHO allowance: when the result is ApprovalRequired, submit its 'approval' transaction and then the 'originalTransaction' beside it, in that order.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
maxNowithdraw only: redeem the entire share balance.
actionYesWhich side to build: deposit GHO, or withdraw by redeeming shares.
amountNoAmount in main units: GHO to deposit, or sGHO shares to redeem. Omit only when max=true.
senderYesWallet address, 0x-prefixed (40 hex chars).
versionNoOptional, and only 'v3': this tool exists on v3 only.
recipientNoOptional address to receive the shares (deposit) or the GHO (withdraw). Omit the argument entirely to use the sender.

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explaining that the tool is non-custodial, builds an unsigned transaction, and commits the user to nothing. It also discloses the ApprovalRequired result shape and the need to submit approval before the original transaction. This adds meaningful behavioral context not present in the structured annotations.

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 earns its place. It front-loads the core purpose and network/version constraint, then methodically covers mode-specific behavior, edge cases, and the allowance prerequisite without repetition or filler.

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?

For a transaction-building tool with six parameters, two required, no output schema, and a potential approval flow, the description is remarkably complete. It covers unit semantics, defaults, exclusions, network/version constraints, and sequential transaction handling, leaving an agent with enough information to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Even though the schema covers all parameters, the description adds crucial semantic distinctions: amount means GHO on deposit but sGHO SHARES on withdraw, max:true means redeem the whole position and omit amount, recipient is optional and defaults to sender, and version is effectively constrained to v3. This is exactly the kind of operational meaning the schema alone does not provide.

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 specifies a clear verb and resource: 'Build an unsigned transaction to deposit GHO into the sGHO vault or withdraw from it.' It also scopes the tool to v3 and Ethereum only, which distinguishes it from the broader prepare_action and other prepare_* siblings.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance for each mode: deposit versus withdraw, when to pass max:true, when to omit amount, when to use recipient, and the required order for approval and originalTransaction when ApprovalRequired. It also tells the agent to proceed with sensible values instead of stopping to ask, which is 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 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