Skip to main content
Glama

lend_repay

Destructive

Repay borrowed amount (non-custodial). Returns an UNSIGNED base64 tx + current health factor. amount in base units of token. Past the daily free tier an x402 payment_header is required.

idempotency_key (optional): a client-generated UUID. Retrying with the same key + same args replays the original result instead of re-repaying. Reuse the SAME key across the build call and its signed_transaction completion call -- see lend_deposit; the two legs dedupe independently, so this never raises IDEMPOTENCY_CONFLICT.

signed_transaction / verify (two-phase execution): see lend_deposit -- re-call with the signed tx and Crank broadcasts it, confirms it on-chain, and re-reads the repaid balance + obligation health.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tokenYes
amountYes
marketNo
verifyNo
protocolYes
caller_idNo
pay_in_crankNo
payment_headerNo
wallet_addressYes
idempotency_keyNo
marginfi_accountNo
signed_transactionNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: non-custodial may have an UNSIGNED transaction, specific idempotency replay semantics, and two-phase execution via signed_transaction. It does not exhaustively describe every effect, but it covers the most important behavioral traits and does not contradict the annotations.

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 well-organized and front-leftloaded with the core purpose and immediate constraints. The two follow-up paragraphs are focused and each carries its own purpose, though the reference to lend_deposit could mean repeated reading for full context.

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 complex a12-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, the description covers key behavioral flows but omits too many parameter meanings and fails to explain how protocol/token/market/marginfi_account should be specified. The output schema and annotations provide some baseline, but an agent would still need to infer significant details.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate, and it partially does by explaining amount units, payment_header, idempotency_key, and signed_transaction/verify. But it does not describe core parameters like protocol, token, wallet_address, market, caller_id, or marginfi_account, leaving meaningful uncertainties for a 12-parameter tool.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Repay borrowed amount (non-custodial).' It further clarifies the exact output ('UNSIGNED base64 tx + current health factor'), making it immediately clear that this is the repayment counterpart to lending tools like lend_borrow and lend_deposit.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description gives helpful operational context, such as when payment_header is required and how the two-phase signed_transaction flow works. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus lend_borrow or lend_deposit, or describe exclusions/alternatives. It mostly implies usage from the tool name and repay context.

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.

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools overlap significantly: close_perp_position vs perp_close, get_leaderboard vs get_score_leaderboard vs get_strategy_leaderboard, get_venue_status vs get_all_venues_status, send_token_social vs bulk_send_social, and get_crank_score vs get_score. Several read-only tools have nearly identical purposes, and the descriptions do not always clarify boundaries.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_balances, create_strategy, set_alert, list_webhooks). However, there are deviations like 'lst_swap', 'jupiter_swap', 'flash_loan', 'sr_backtest', and the use of both 'get_' and 'list_' for reads, plus category prefixes like 'perp_' and 'strategy_' that vary in order. Overall still readable and predictable.

Tool Count1/5

177 tools is an extreme count for any server, far exceeding the 25+ threshold for 'too many'. Even a full DeFi platform does not need this many separate operations; the surface is overwhelming and clearly not well-scoped.

Completeness3/5

The domain (Solana DeFi trading) is covered extensively across swaps, perps, lending, staking, strategies, signals, and support. However, there are notable gaps: no lend_withdraw, no direct way to close a lending position, no spot order cancellation (though aggregator-based swaps may not need it), and a general lack of tiered account management. The huge number of tools makes it hard to identify missing lifecycle steps.

Resources