Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Aureon MCP

Aureon MCP

Official
by buildaureon
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

aureon_prepare_vault_withdraw

Prepare unsigned vault withdrawal calldata so the host can sign and broadcast the transaction; an API key alone cannot move funds.

Instructions

Prepare unsigned vault withdraw steps. Returns calldata only — host must sign/broadcast. API key alone cannot move funds.

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": "aureon_prepare_vault_withdraw"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
amountYesHuman-readable amount
symbolNoWithdraw symbol (default WETH; not ETH)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.16

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it states the tool produces unsigned calldata only, that the host must sign/broadcast, and that an API key alone cannot move funds. That discloses non-mutating behavior and a security boundary, though it omits required permissions and any chain/network context.

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?

Three tight clauses, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the two critical constraints. Zero filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a two-parameter prepare tool with no output schema, the description covers the key contract: calldata-only output, host-side signing, no fund movement. It leaves minor gaps on required auth scopes and what to do with the returned calldata, but nothing essential is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents both amount and symbol. The description adds no syntax, formatting, or default details beyond the schema's note that symbol defaults to WETH, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Prepare unsigned vault withdraw steps.' An agent can tell the action apart from its deposit sibling, though the description never names aureon_prepare_vault_deposit or any alternative explicitly.

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 verb ('prepare... withdraw'), but there is no statement of when to prefer this over alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of a confirm/broadcast follow-up step an agent would need to chain after this prepares calldata.

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