metalend

Get rebalancer config

get_config

Read-only

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

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`walletAddress`	Yes	EVM 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.

First observedSep 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only/non-destructive, but the description layers substantial additional behavior: spendingCapRaw is not a spending limit, template entries always exist, hasSignedConfig determines reality, gas-fee drift can occur between polls, and rate limits are stated. This far exceeds annotation coverage.

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 densely packed and front-loaded with the core purpose before diving into caveats. Backticked field names and clear warnings keep it navigable; it could be tightened slightly, but nearly every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description tells the agent which fields are returned, how to interpret edge cases, what to do when no config exists, and the rate limit. For a read-only config query, nothing essential is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%; the only parameter, walletAddress, is fully documented in the schema including formatting and normalization. The description adds wallet-level behavioral context but no new parameter syntax, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get') and resource ('a wallet's current rebalancer configuration per token'), enumerates the included fields, and explicitly differentiates from get_balances and get_default_config. This makes sibling selection unambiguous.

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?

Directly instructs to use get_balances for live balances and get_default_config for recommended starting values when rebalancerExists is false. Also clarifies what this tool is not, with explicit exclusions and alternatives.

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

All metalend tools Inspect

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

Need Help?