Skip to main content
Glama

Get rebalancer config

get_config
Read-only

[DEPRECATED] Get a wallet's current rebalancer configuration per token: which protocols/pools/chains are enabled, rebalance frequency, lifetime deposits/withdrawals/fees, and spending cap. spendingCapRaw/spendingCapFormatted (USDC only, null/"0" for every other token) is NOT a spending/deposit/withdrawal limit despite the name. When set (nonzero), it's the target balance MetaLend automatically keeps topped up in the wallet's OWN address (not the rebalancer contract) as Aave aUSDC + native USDC on Linea combined — funding a card tied to this wallet that spends directly from that Linea balance. Refills happen automatically on a weekly cycle and after fresh USDC deposits, not instantly. null/"0" means this auto-funding is off, not "uncapped" (there is no general spending ceiling to remove) — see prepare_config's own spendingCapRaw field description for the full mechanics. Also returns rebalancerAddress and rebalancingManagerAddress. Does NOT return live balances — use get_balances for that. rebalancerExists: false means the wallet has never configured a rebalancer; use get_default_config to see recommended starting values. Each configuration's totalGasFee is the lifetime sum of on-behalf gas fees this wallet has paid for this token — not just from deposits/withdrawals it explicitly requested. MetaLend periodically moves a wallet's funds between pools/protocols/chains on its own (chasing better yield, honoring requiredTvl/requiredLiquidityMultiplier/collateralExposure), and each such move is its own on-chain transaction with its own gas fee, deducted the same way a deposit/withdrawal fee is. So a wallet's balance can drift down slightly between get_balances polls with no deposit/withdrawal in between — that's this, not a bug or lost funds. IMPORTANT: configurations always includes a default/template entry for every supported token, whether or not the wallet ever signed one — a matching entry existing does NOT mean the wallet has a real config. Check that entry's hasSignedConfig to know if it's real. Rate limited to 20 calls/minute per caller, no more than one call every 3s.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
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.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Far exceeds the annotation baseline (readOnlyHint/openWorldHint only): it discloses the misleading spendingCapRaw naming, that null/'0' means auto-funding is off rather than uncapped, that refills are weekly/bursty, the totalGasFee lifetime-drift behavior that could be mistaken for lost funds, the hasSignedConfig trap on template entries, and explicit rate limits (20/min, 1 per 3s). No contradictions with 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 core purpose is front-loaded, followed by field-level caveats. It is unusually long for a single-parameter read tool, and some clauses (the full spendingCapRaw mechanics) border on redundant with prepare_config, but nearly every sentence carries non-obvious semantic information.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden and does so: it explains the shape of configurations, the meaning of rebalancerExists, totalGasFee, spendingCapRaw/Formatted, and the returned addresses. An agent has enough to interpret results without additional documentation.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 0x-prefixed address and EIP-55 normalization. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a wallet's current rebalancer configuration per token') and enumerates the fields returned (protocols/pools/chains, frequency, lifetime deposits/withdrawals/fees, spending cap). It explicitly contrasts with get_balances ('Does NOT return live balances') and get_default_config, so an agent can route correctly. The DEPRECATED marker plus title make scope unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Names alternatives for specific needs: get_balances for live balances, get_default_config when rebalancerExists is false. It also flags the tool as deprecated, which is important usage context. It stops short of stating the recommended replacement for the deprecated path, which is the one gap.

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.