Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Graph AAVE MCP

Graph AAVE MCP

by PaulieB14
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_v4_spokes

Retrieve Aave V4 spokes (chain-specific deployment points) for cross-chain lending across multiple networks. Specify chain ID to filter results.

Instructions

Get Aave V4 spokes (Main, Bluechip, Kelp, Lido, Ethena, EtherFi, etc.). Spokes are chain-specific deployment points enabling cross-chain lending. No API key needed.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_v4_spokes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainIdNoChain ID. Defaults to Ethereum.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv3.0.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, but the description discloses that no API key is required and returns a list of spokes with examples. This adds transparency beyond the parameter schema.

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?

Two sentences: first lists examples, second defines spokes and mentions no API key. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, examples, and access requirements. The agent can correctly invoke this tool.

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% with a clear description for chainId: 'Chain ID. Defaults to Ethereum.' The tool description does not add additional semantics, so baseline score of 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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves Aave V4 spokes, provides examples (Main, Bluechip, etc.), and defines spokes as chain-specific deployment points. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_v4_hubs or get_v4_chains.

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 notes 'No API key needed,' indicating simple access. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, but the purpose is straightforward enough for correct invocation.

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