Skip to main content
Glama

read_account_info

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get full overview of an Arcadia account: health factor, collateral value, debt, deposited assets, liquidation price, and automation status. Health factor = 1 - (used_margin / liquidation_value): 1 = no debt (safest), >0 = healthy, 0 = liquidation threshold, <0 = past liquidation. Higher is safer. The automation object reports which asset managers are enabled (rebalancer, compounder, yield_claimer, cow_swapper, merkl_operator, gas_relayer), each as the position's dex_protocol when protocol-specific or true when account-level, plus inferred_intents (the automations those managers add up to), merkl claim state, and deprecated_managers for any superseded deployment still set on the account. Superseded managers should be cleared: write_account_automations disables them as part of a save. For the full decoded per-manager config use read_asset_manager_current. LP positions in assets[] include a dex_protocol field (slipstream, slipstream_v2, slipstream_v3, staked_slipstream, staked_slipstream_v2, staked_slipstream_v3, uniV3, uniV4). To configure automations, prefer passing the position's id as position_id to write_account_automations, which resolves the protocol and tokens for you; the dex_protocol value is also accepted directly as its protocol param. Slipstream V2 is Base-only. V3 is available on Base and Optimism. Unichain supports only Slipstream V1, uniV3, and uniV4. Numeric fields without a _usd suffix are in the account's numeraire token raw units (divide by 10^decimals: 6 for USDC, 18 for WETH, 8 for cbBTC). Fields ending in _usd are in USD with 18 decimals (divide by 1e18). health_factor is unitless. Asset amounts are raw token units. To list all accounts for a wallet, use read_wallet_accounts.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chain_idNoChain ID: 8453 (Base), 130 (Unichain), 10 (Optimism), or 4663 (Robinhood)
account_addressYesArcadia account address

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
overviewYes
automationNo
context_notesNo
account_versionYes
liquidation_priceYes

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description goes far beyond that by explaining health factor semantics, automation object structure, deprecated managers, dex protocols, and exact unit conventions for numeric fields. There is no contradiction between the description and 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.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose is front-loaded, but the description is a dense single paragraph with many tangential details, including instructions for write_account_automations, position_id, and deprecated manager cleanup. While most sentences carry useful information, the lack of sectioning and inclusion of write-tool guidance makes it less concise than it could be.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description adds critical interpretation details: health factor scale, unit conversions, automation manager semantics, dex_protocol values across chains, and related tool routing. An agent has everything needed to call the tool correctly and interpret the returned data.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add meaningful parameter-specific guidance; account_address and chain_id are already described in the schema. The chain/protocol availability notes are useful context for interpreting data but not directly about parameter semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get full overview of an Arcadia account,' and enumerates concrete content areas (health factor, collateral, debt, assets, liquidation price, automation status). It also names sibling alternatives like read_asset_manager_current and read_wallet_accounts, distinguishing this tool from related ones.

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 tells the agent when to use alternatives: 'For the full decoded per-manager config use read_asset_manager_current' and 'To list all accounts for a wallet, use read_wallet_acounts.' It also gives context about when to use write_account_automations, which helps clarify boundaries around automation configuration.

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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action, with clear read/write separation and detailed descriptions that specify exact use cases. Overlapping tools like write_account_deposit vs write_account_add_liquidity explicitly cross-reference to avoid misuse, and the asset-manager variants are clearly differentiated by staking/compounding/CowSwap behaviors.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent read_* / write_* prefix with snake_case resource and action naming. Subgroup patterns are uniform (e.g., write_account_*, write_asset_manager_*), and the only outlier, dev_send, is intentionally marked as a dev-only exception.

Tool Count2/5

Forty tools is a very large surface, well above the typical 3-15 range for a well-scoped server. The seven separate write_asset_manager_* intent tools are highly granular and could likely be consolidated into a single parameterized automation tool, reducing cognitive load.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers the full Arcadia lifecycle: account creation, collateral deposit/withdrawal, borrowing/repayment, LP add/remove/close, staking, automations, lending pool deposits/redeems, and comprehensive read operations. No obvious workflow dead ends exist, and all necessary supporting reads (prices, allowances, balances) are present.