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 Staking

lends_prepare_approve_leusd_for_staking
Read-onlyIdempotent

Construct the leUSD approval to authorize staking into sleUSD.

Instructions

Construct leUSD approval for sleUSD staking.

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_staking"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
amountYes

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?

The description adds that this is a construction ('Construct') rather than an execution, which aligns with readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. It does not add further behavioral detail such as what the constructed value is or what authorization it grants, so it stops at adequate.

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?

A single six-word sentence that front-loads the purpose and contains no filler. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a one-parameter prepare tool with read-only annotations, this is nearly adequate, but it omits the relationship to lends_prepare_stake (whether this must be called first) and does not state what the constructed approval looks like or how amount is denominated. These are not fatal given the simple input, but they are real gaps.

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 never mentions the amount parameter or its units; an agent cannot determine whether amount is human-readable leUSD or raw base units, only that it must be a non-negative integer. The token label in the tool name implies leUSD, but that is inference, not documentation.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Construct') with a concrete resource ('leUSD approval') and scopes it to 'sleUSD staking,' which distinguishes it from sibling approval tools such as lends_prepare_approve_leusd_for_repay and lends_prepare_approve_leusd_for_psm.

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 clearly situates the tool in the staking flow rather than repay or PSM flows, so an agent can infer when it applies. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state a when-not condition, but the purpose phrase is 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