Skip to main content
Glama

GetEntityLoans

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get loan/borrow positions for an entity

Returns an overview of loaned/supplied/borrowed assets for a given entity.

Costs 3 API credits per call.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "GetEntityLoans"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes
queryNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes one genuinely new behavioral fact — a cost of 3 API credits per call — but says nothing about response shape, pagination, or chain coverage defaults.

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?

Three short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the cost disclosure trailing; no filler. The second sentence is close to restating the first, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a read-only tool with no output schema and a nested two-parameter schema, the description covers purpose and cost but leaves the result payload, the meaning of the chains filter, and the entity ID requirements to the schema. Adequate, but with visible gaps.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is reported as 0% at the property level for path/query, so the description is expected to compensate — yet it never mentions the entity ID format, case sensitivity, the ID lookup route, or the comma-separated chains filter. It adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 specific verb and resource ("Get loan/borrow positions for an entity") and the second sentence enumerates the position types (loaned/supplied/borrowed). The entity scope implicitly separates it from GetAddressLoans, but no sibling is named explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no statement of when to use this versus GetAddressLoans, GetEntityBalances, or GetEntityPortfolioHistory, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only guidance is the implied entity-vs-address distinction baked into the name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.