Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Borro

by markets.borro
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Prepare: deposit into Zero Dark

darkroom_deposit
Read-onlyIdempotent

Unsigned transactions to deposit USDG or a market's stock into the wallet's Zero Dark balance (or, with for, into another account's: anyone may fund an account, a session key included): approve exactly the amount when needed, then deposit. Simulated from the wallet.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "wallet": "<wallet>",
      "token": "<token>",
      "amount": "<amount>"
    },
    "name": "darkroom_deposit"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
forNoOptional: the account to fund (0x...)
tokenYesUSDG or a market's symbol
amountYesA decimal amount, like "100"
walletYesThe wallet's address (0x...): the transactions are built for it to sign

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that the output is unsigned transactions for the wallet to sign, that an approval of exactly the needed amount is prepended, and that it is 'Simulated from the wallet' — all material for a prepare-style tool. It stops short of saying how the transactions are returned or what a simulation failure looks like.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the core action first and the 'for' variant parenthesised after it; every clause carries information. The nested parentheses and the trailing 'Simulated from the wallet' fragment make it slightly denser than it needs to be.

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 4-parameter, annotation-covered prepare tool the essential facts are present, but with no output schema the description should say what comes back (raw unsigned tx objects? a simulation result?) and what the caller is expected to do next. 'Simulated from the wallet' is an unexplained hint rather than actionable guidance.

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, but the description adds real meaning: 'for' is not just an address field but an arbitrary account that anyone, including a session key, may fund, and 'amount' is implicitly the approval amount as well as the deposit size. Only 'wallet' and 'token' get nothing beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a concrete verb and resource ('Unsigned transactions to deposit USDG or a market's stock into ... Zero Dark balance') and separates the self-funding case from the 'for' case in one breath. It is distinguishable from siblings like darkroom_withdraw or farm_deposit, but the phrase 'approve exactly the amount when needed, then deposit' muddies whether one or two transactions are produced.

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 does give a positive trigger: use the 'for' parameter when funding another account, and notes that a session key may do so. It never states when NOT to use this tool or which sibling to prefer (darkroom_withdraw, farm_deposit, supply, deposit_cover), so the agent must infer routing.

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

All Borro toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources