mcp-server

write_pool_redeem

Build an unsigned transaction to redeem Arcadia lending tranche shares, burning them to withdraw the corresponding underlying asset plus accrued interest for a specified owner and receiver.

Instructions

Build an unsigned redeem transaction to withdraw from an Arcadia lending tranche (ERC-4626). Burns tranche shares and returns the corresponding amount of underlying asset, including accrued interest. The owner must be the shares holder; receiver is where the underlying asset is sent.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`owner`	Yes	Address that owns the tranche shares being burned. Normally the signer's own wallet.
`shares`	Yes	Amount of tranche shares to burn, in raw units. To redeem everything, use the owner's full share balance.
`chain_id`	No	Chain ID: 8453 (Base), 130 (Unichain), 10 (Optimism), or 4663 (Robinhood)
`receiver`	Yes	Address that receives the underlying asset. Usually the owner's own wallet.
`tranche_address`	Yes	Tranche contract address (ERC-4626 vault). Get this from read_pool_list: each pool's `tranches[0].address`.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`description`	Yes
`transaction`	Yes
`predicted_account_address`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.6.0Oct 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses that the tool builds an unsigned transaction, burns tranche shares, returns the corresponding underlying including accrued interest, and requires the owner to be the shares holder. It does not disclose submission behavior, approval requirements, or failure modes, but adds meaningful context over the annotation safety profile.

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 front-loaded with the core action and resource, then adds only the essential mechanics and role constraints. Every sentence contributes useful information with no wasted text.

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?

With an output schema present, full schema coverage, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is complete for correct invocation. It covers the unsigned-transaction nature, share burning, underlying return including interest, and owner/receiver roles.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are already well documented. The description reinforces the owner-as-shareholder and receiver-destination semantics but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: builds an unsigned redeem transaction for an Arcadia lending tranche (ERC-4626), withdrawing underlying by burning shares. It is clearly distinct from deposit/read tools by its redeem/withdraw framing, though it does not explicitly name the sibling alternative write_pool_deposit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the redeem/withdraw description and the prerequisite that the owner must be the shares holder. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over write_pool_deposit or other withdrawal paths, nor does it spell out when-not conditions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server