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

lends-mcp-server

Official
by LendsProtocol
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Lends Prepare Approve Leusd For Psm

lends_prepare_approve_leusd_for_psm
Read-onlyIdempotent

Prepare an leUSD approval for a PSM swap out to USDG, constructing the unsigned transaction needed to authorize the conversion.

Instructions

Construct leUSD approval for a PSM swap out to USDG.

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": {
      "amount": "<amount>"
    },
    "name": "lends_prepare_approve_leusd_for_psm"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
amountYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

'Construct' conveys that this prepares data rather than executing an on-chain change, and the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false) reinforce the safe, non-mutating nature. It adds the specific asset and workflow context, though it does not describe the returned transaction shape or approval mechanics.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the key verb and resource, with no filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 one simple parameter and safety-carrying annotations, the description is mostly sufficient for selection, and it identifies the asset, spender context, and direction. However, it lacks amount scale and any description of the return value/output shape, and there is no output schema to compensate.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the single 'amount' parameter, and the description never mentions amount, its units/decimals, or whether it is the raw leUSD allowance amount. The name and context imply amount is the leUSD amount to approve, but the agent must guess the scale.

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 names a specific verb ('Construct'), a specific resource ('leUSD approval'), and an exact context ('PSM swap out to USDG'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like lends_prepare_approve_usdg_for_psm and lends_prepare_approve_leusd_for_repay.

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 the tool is relevant: preparing leUSD approval as part of a PSM swap out to USDG. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, which is the only reason it is not a 5.

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