Arcadia Finance

write_account_automations_delta

Idempotent

Apply an explicit change to an account's automations and return the unsigned setAssetManagers transaction. Unlike write_account_automations this is a delta, not a full desired state: automations you do not mention are left untouched. Use it to switch one automation on or off without restating the others.

The enable array takes intents to switch on (same shapes as write_account_automations). To turn an automation OFF, call read_asset_manager_current, take the address of the manager serving it, and pass that address in the disable array: an intent with enabled: false in enable is rejected because the backend would ignore it. Superseded or unreadable managers still set on the account are force-disabled in the same transaction regardless.

Intents:

compound_fees: reinvest earned fees/rewards back into the LP. Optional 'tokens' scopes it per yielding token. A staked reward that is not a pool token is swapped in via CowSwap automatically.
claim_rewards: claim yield out. config.mode as_earned pays the tokens as-is, convert_to swaps them to config.buy_token via CowSwap. config.convert_tokens converts only a subset and claims the rest as-earned. config.destination account or wallet.
add_to_lp: fold idle pool-token balances (deposits, rebalance leftovers) back into the LP. Opt-in per token.
claim_merkl: auto-claim Merkl incentive rewards. Independent of the compounder/claimer/cowswapper triad and needs no position context.
rebalance: reposition the LP. strategy out_of_range (default), take_profit (runs on the dedicated profit-taker contract), or protocol_owned_liquidity.

Pass position_id (from assets[] in read_account_info) and the backend fills in protocol, is_staked, token0, token1 and reward_tokens for you; anything you pass explicitly wins. claim_merkl needs no position context.

Rules the backend enforces (a violation is returned as an error, never written on-chain):

Every yielding token must be assigned to exactly one of compound_fees or claim_rewards. Scoping one to a subset without covering the rest is rejected, and no token may be in both.
A wallet or custom-recipient payout requires a pure as-earned claim: nothing converted, and every yielding token claimed. Converts settle in the account.
convert_tokens must be a subset of the claimed tokens, and buy_token cannot be a compounded token, a converted token, or an add_to_lp folded token.
Each intent kind may appear only once, and a token list must not be empty or name a token the position does not yield.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`owner`	No	Account owner EOA. Used to resolve wallet payout targets.
`enable`	No	Intents to switch on. Leave empty when only disabling. This array cannot turn anything off: an entry with enabled: false is rejected, use `disable` instead.
`token0`	No	Pool token0 address.
`token1`	No	Pool token1 address.
`disable`	No	Asset-manager addresses to switch off, as returned by read.asset_manager.current.
`chain_id`	No	Chain ID: 8453 (Base), 130 (Unichain), 10 (Optimism), or 4663 (Robinhood)
`protocol`	No	Position's DEX protocol. Only needed when position_id is omitted. Accepts the dex_protocol values the read tools return (slipstream, staked_slipstream_v3, uniV3, ...), which imply is_staked, as well as the canonical slipstream_v1 / uniswap_v3 spellings.
`is_staked`	No	Whether the LP position is staked. Implied by a staked_* protocol value.
`position_id`	No	LP position (NFT) id, as listed in assets[] by read.account.info. Supply this and the backend fetches protocol, staked flag, tokens and reward tokens for you. Strongly preferred over passing the position fields by hand.
`reward_tokens`	No	Staking reward token addresses.
`account_address`	Yes	Arcadia account address

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`diff`	No
`plan`	Yes
`valid`	Yes
`errors`	Yes
`warnings`	Yes
`description`	Yes
`transaction`	No
`preview_only`	No
`human_summary`	Yes
`simulation_url`	No
`no_changes_needed`	No
`tenderly_sim_status`	No

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true) set the safety profile, and the description adds substantial behavior on top: the returned transaction is unsigned, superseded or unreadable managers are force-disabled in the same transaction, a backend rule violation is returned as an error and never writen on-chain, and position context is auto-filed with explicit values winning. Nothing contradicts the annotations; the delta semantics is consistent with idempotentHint.

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 long, but the tool genuinely is complex (five intent kinds plus backend-enforced rules), and the structure helps: the first paragraph front-loads purpose and the delta-versus-full-state distinction, then enable/disable mechanics, intent semantics, position_id, and finally the rules section. It misses a 5 because several rules are restated in the schema's own field descriptions, creating mild redundancy.

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 high-complexity tool with an output schema and 100% parameter coverage, the description still carries everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly: the disable prerequisite (read_asset_manager_current), where position_id comes from (assets[] in read_account_info), the backend-enforced consistency rules, and the error-behavior contract. Nothing essential is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description then adds genuine meaning: it explains each intent kind's effect (e.g., claim_rewards mode as_earned versus convert_to and the convert_tokens subset rule), disambiguates the confusing enabled: false field by directing the agent to the disable array, and documents that position_id auto-fills protocol, is_staked, token0, token1, and reward_tokens. Some overlap with per-field schema text, but the added semantic value lifts it above baseline.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Apply an explicit change to an account's automations') plus its return value (the unsigned transaction). It also names the sibling and the distinguishing feature: 'Unlike write_account_automations this is a delta, not a full desired state', so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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?

Explicit usage condition: 'Use it to switch one automation on or off without restating the others', with write_account_automations implied as the full-desired-state alternative. It also spells out the disable workflow and its prerequisite sibling: 'call read_asset_manager_current, take the address of the manager serving it, and pass that address in the disable array'.

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

All Arcadia Finance 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

A4.2/5.0

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.

write_account_automations_delta

Input Schema

Output Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources