Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kaskad Protocol MCP Server

Kaskad Protocol MCP Server

by Kaskad-Lending
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript

unstakeKSKD

Redeem stKSKD shares for KSKD at a 1:1 ratio. Monitor your balance to preserve governance eligibility.

Instructions

Unstake stKSKD shares back to KSKD (1:1). Warning: if balance drops to 0, governance eligibility resets. Requires MCP_WALLET_KEY.

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": {
      "shares": "<shares>"
    },
    "name": "unstakeKSKD"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sharesYesNumber of stKSKD shares to redeem (human units, e.g. 100 = 100 stKSKD)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds meaningful behavioral warnings: the governance eligibility reset on zero balance and the MCP_WALLET_KEY requirement. It does not describe the return value or transaction outcome, but the core behavioral risks are disclosed.

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?

Three short sentences deliver the action, the conversion ratio, a critical warning, and an authentication requirement with no filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter unstake operation, the description covers what the tool does, the conversion rate, an important edge-case warning, and a prerequisite. The only notable omission is the return format, but the tool is simple enough that this is not a serious gap.

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%, so the schema already documents the shares parameter with an example. The description reinforces the 'shares' concept and the 1:1 ratio but adds little semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 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 the exact operation ('Unstake stKSKD shares back to KSKD') with a clear verb, resource, and conversion ratio (1:1). It naturally differentiates from the sibling stakeKSKD by naming the reverse direction explicitly.

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 use case is clearly implied: call this when converting stKSKD back to KSKD. It does not explicitly name stakeKSKD as the alternative or state when not to use it, but the reverse-action wording makes the intended 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

Other Tools