Kaskad Protocol MCP Server

borrow

Borrow assets from the Kaskad Protocol lending pool using sufficient collateral, defaulting to variable rate with a 10% per-action limit. Testnet only.

Instructions

Borrow an asset from the Kaskad Protocol lending pool. Requires sufficient collateral. Uses variable rate by default. Trust boundary: max 10% of available borrows per action. Testnet only.

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": {
      "asset": "<asset>",
      "amount": "<amount>"
    },
    "name": "borrow"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`asset`	Yes	Asset symbol: IGRA, USDC, WETH, WBTC, IKAS, WIKAS, KSKD
`amount`	Yes	Amount to borrow (in token units, not wei)
`interestRateMode`	No	1 = stable, 2 = variable (default)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the collateral prerequisite, variable-rate default, a quantitative trust boundary ('max 10% of available borrows per action'), and the testnet-only environment. This goes well beyond the schema and does not contradict any annotation.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is five short statements, each adding a distinct fact: purpose, collateral requirement, rate default, trust cap, and environment restriction. It is front-loaded, dense, and contains no filler or redundant wording.

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 three-parameter action with a fully documented schema, the description adds the critical non-schema context: collateral, variable-rate default, per-action trust cap, and testnet-only availability. It does not describe return values or debt accrual, but those are not essential for correct selection and invocation of this simple action.

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?

The input schema already covers all three parameters with 100% detail, including asset symbols, token-unit semantics, and interestRateMode codes. The tool description only restates the variable-rate default already present in the schema, so it adds no meaningful parameter information beyond the baseline.

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 first sentence states the exact verb and resource: 'Borrow an asset from the Kaskad Protocol lending pool.' This makes the tool's function immediately clear and distinguishes it from sibling tools like supply, repay, and withdraw without requiring schema inspection.

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?

The description gives clear context for when to use the tool: borrowing requires sufficient collateral, is limited to testnet, and carries a 10% trust cap per action. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the verb and sibling set make the selection context unambiguous.

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

Deploy Server