Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
lends-mcp-server

lends-mcp-server

Official
by LendsProtocol
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Lends Get Liquidation Plan

lends_get_liquidation_plan
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check liquidation eligibility and projected coverage for a borrower's collateral. Plan liquidations without executing them.

Instructions

Read liquidation eligibility and projected coverage without executing liquidation.

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": {
      "owner": "<owner>",
      "collateral": "<collateral>"
    },
    "name": "lends_get_liquidation_plan"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ownerYes
collateralYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's main safety message overlaps with them. The description adds the useful framing of 'projected coverage' but does not reveal additional behavioral details like return shape or edge cases.

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 a single tight sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds the key safety qualifier without redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description only vaguely indicates what the tool returns via 'eligibility and projected coverage.' Parameter semantics are also left unexplained, so while the tool is simple and annotations cover safety, an agent would still need to infer input meaning and return shape.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description gives no parameter-level guidance. The names 'owner' and 'collateral' are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not clarify whether collateral is an asset address, amount, or something else, leaving an important gap.

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 description opens with the specific verb 'Read' and names the exact resource: liquidation eligibility and projected coverage. It also explicitly clarifies that the tool does not execute liquidation, which distinguishes it from execution-oriented siblings.

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 phrase 'without executing liquidation' clearly communicates when this tool is appropriate: as a read-only preflight for liquidation decisions. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or exclusion, but the context is clear enough.

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