Skip to main content
Glama

Prepare: collect from a hold

hold_collect
Read-onlyIdempotent

One unsigned transaction paying a hold's payee. Metered: settle with the latest voucher (cumulative and signature, or by default the last one Borro's facilitator accepted); until the expiry anyone may send it, in the 4-day grace after it the payee or its operator, and the USDG goes to the payee. Charge: charge an amount (default all the cap has left), the payee or its operator, until the grace ends. A stock hold sells stock along its desk's route, while the market is open. When the vault can pay out part of it, it pays that much and the rest can be collected later; in_shares true (the payee or its operator) pays the vault's shares instead, which needs no liquidity (a stock hold's at its feed with BorroHolds' constant pad of 0.5% (PAD_BPS, 50 bps), while the market is open: shares worth the amount divided by one plus the pad, the whole amount counted as paid; the payee bears the pad whenever it collects a stock hold in kind). Simulated from the wallet, with what the payee gets after the hold's fee.

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>",
      "hold": "<hold>"
    },
    "name": "hold_collect"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
holdYesThe hold's id
amountNoCharge mode: USDG to charge, in whole units as a decimal string, like "1.5"
walletYesThe wallet's address (0x...); the transactions are built for it to sign
in_sharesNoPay the payee the vault's shares worth the amount (a stock hold's divided by one plus the constant 0.5% (PAD_BPS, 50 bps) pad; the payee or its operator)
signatureNoMetered: the voucher's signature
cumulativeNoMetered: the voucher's cumulative, in USDG's smallest units

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: it is an unsigned transaction, simulated from the wallet, subject to expiry/grace sender rules, pays the payee after the hold's fee, can partially pay out, and handles stock holds via the desk route with the PAD_BPS pad. This is rich disclosure for a preparation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

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

The core purpose is front-loaded, but the description is a dense run-on paragraph with nested parentheticals and semicolon-separated clauses. It is hard to scan and could be structured into distinct mode, timing, and payout sections.

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?

For a complex financial preparation tool with no output schema, the description supplies modes, timing, permissions, fee behavior, simulation context, partial payout semantics, and share handling. It remains slightly incomplete on mode selection and the exact returned transaction shape, but is largely sufficient.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics for amount (default all remaining cap), metered voucher fields, and in_shares behavior including liquidity and the 0.5% pad.

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 specific action and resource: preparing an unsigned transaction that pays a hold's payee, with metered, charge, stock-hold, and in_shares variants. It is clearly differentiated from a generic payment tool, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as hold_pay or hold_end.

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 explains mode-specific conditions, who may send the transaction, and timing around expiry/grace. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over siblings like hold_pay or hold_end, nor does it clearly state how metered versus charge mode is selected.

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.

Resources