Skip to main content
Glama

MetaLend

by io.github.rabeles11

Get SIWE auth challenge

get_auth_challenge

Get a Sign-In-With-Ethereum challenge message for a wallet, required before any deposit/withdrawal/config-update tool. The returned message must be signed with personal_sign (EIP-191) by the wallet's own signer, then passed to submit_auth_verify. Does NOT itself authenticate anything — it only issues the message to sign. Repeated calls for the same walletAddress within a short window (a few minutes) return the SAME message rather than a fresh one — the backend only keeps one pending challenge per wallet at a time, and generating a new one would invalidate whatever an earlier caller is about to sign, so this is deliberate, not a caching bug. chain does not affect which cached message you get back. Rate limited to 10 calls/minute per caller, no more than one call every 6s.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainNoChain name, e.g. BASE, ETHEREUM, POLYGON. Defaults to ETHEREUM if omitted. Cosmetic only — shown as the 'Chain ID:' line in the SIWE message text, does not need to match the chain passed to submit_auth_verify.
walletAddressYesEVM wallet address (0x-prefixed, 40 hex chars). Any casing is accepted — it is normalized to its EIP-55 checksum before being forwarded upstream.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: it does not authenticate, repeated calls return the same cached message by design, chain does not affect the cached message, and there are rate limits. This is rich behavioral context that significantly helps an agent avoid misinterpreting repeated responses as bugs.

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 longer than average, but nearly every sentence carries important operational information or prevents a misunderstanding. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then flows into signing requirements, caching behavior, and rate limits. A minor redundancy exists with the schema's chain description, but it does not detract significantly.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the complexity of the auth flow, the description is largely complete: it explains the purpose, the required follow-up step, caching semantics, and rate limiting. It mentions the returned message field but does not detail the full response shape or how an agent should handle potential errors or expiry, which would be useful since no output schema is provided.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context for parameters: it explains that chain does not affect which cached message is returned and reinforces that walletAddress must be the wallet's own signer. This goes slightly beyond the schema descriptions.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: obtaining a Sign-In-With-Ethereum challenge message for a wallet. It also distinguishes itself by explicitly noting it does NOT authenticate anything and is a prerequisite for other categories of tools, separating it from siblings like submit_auth_verify.

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?

Usage is explicitly contextualized: it is required before deposit, withdrawal, or config-update tools, and the returned message must be signed and passed to submit_auth_verify. The description also explains when repeated calls are appropriate versus when they might appear surprising, giving 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 MetaLend 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

A4.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool targets a distinct operation: auth challenge/verify, config read/build/submit, deposit/withdrawal prepare/submit/status, balances, rewards, pools, and small utility lookups. Descriptions explicitly cross-reference one another (e.g., get_balances vs get_bridge_balances vs get_rewards), making accidental misselection very unlikely.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: get_* for reads, prepare_* for signing-payload construction, submit_* for signed writes, and list_pools for the catalog. The verb families map cleanly onto the tool's lifecycle stages, so the naming is predictable and scannable.

Tool Count4/5

19 tools is on the higher end, but the count is justified by the domain: authentication, config lifecycle, deposit/withdrawal prepare-and-submit flows, status polling, balances, and reward reading each need dedicated surface area. A few utilities (get_token_info, get_transaction_costs, get_withdrawal_version) feel slightly granular, but none are redundant.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the core lifecycle well: auth, config creation/update, deposit, withdrawal, status tracking, balance/reward queries, and pool discovery. Minor gaps exist (no reward claim endpoint, no deposit/withdrawal history listing, no explicit rebalancer deletion), but the descriptions provide workarounds and clearly scope what is intentionally unsupported.

Resources