Morpho API MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes targeting different resources like accounts, markets, vaults, and specific data types (e.g., prices, APY, liquidations). However, some overlap exists between get_markets and get_whitelisted_markets, which could cause confusion as both retrieve market data with similar filtering capabilities.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent snake_case naming pattern with a clear 'get_' prefix followed by a descriptive noun phrase (e.g., get_account_overview, get_historical_apy). This uniformity makes the toolset predictable and easy to navigate.
Tool Count5/5
With 14 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of providing comprehensive data access to Morpho's DeFi platform. Each tool serves a specific, necessary function covering accounts, markets, vaults, and historical data without appearing bloated or sparse.
Completeness4/5
The toolset offers extensive read-only coverage for querying account details, market data, vault information, and historical metrics like APY and transactions. A minor gap exists in the lack of write or action-oriented tools (e.g., for interacting with positions or vaults), but this may be intentional for a data-focused server.
Average 2.8/5 across 14 of 14 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does ('Get oracle details') without describing any behavioral traits such as read-only vs. mutative nature, error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying the core action and target.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'oracle details' include, parameter semantics, behavioral traits, or output format. For a tool that likely returns structured data about oracles, this minimal description is inadequate and leaves too much undefined for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It doesn't explain what 'chainId' or 'marketUniqueKey' represent, their formats, or examples (e.g., chainId as a numeric identifier, marketUniqueKey as a string key). With 2 parameters and low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters undocumented.
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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'oracle details for a specific market', making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_markets' (general market list) or 'get_asset_price' (specific price data) by focusing on oracle details. However, it doesn't specify what 'oracle details' include (e.g., price feeds, timestamps, sources), leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid market key), exclusions, or how it differs from siblings like 'get_asset_price' (which might provide price data without oracle metadata). Usage is implied only by the name and description, with no explicit context or alternatives named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Get') without details on permissions, rate limits, response format, or whether it's read-only or has side effects. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary words, making it concise. However, it could be more structured by including key details, but as-is, it is appropriately sized for its limited content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not compensate for the lack of structured data, failing to explain parameters, return values, or behavioral traits. This makes it inadequate for effective tool selection and invocation.
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%, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, failing to explain parameters like 'vaultAddress' (required), 'first', 'skip', 'orderBy', or 'orderDirection'. This leaves the agent without semantic context for the inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose as 'Get vault reallocates for a specific vault,' which includes a verb ('Get') and resource ('vault reallocates'), making it clear what it does. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like 'get_vault_allocation' or 'get_vault_transactions,' leaving ambiguity about what 'reallocates' specifically refers to compared to similar tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context on prerequisites, such as needing a valid vault address, and does not mention sibling tools like 'get_vault_allocation' or 'get_vault_transactions' that might handle related data, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool gets transactions but fails to describe critical behaviors like pagination (implied by 'first' and 'skip' parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'latest' means (e.g., time-based or count-based). This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, though it could be more structured by including key usage notes. The brevity is appropriate but risks under-specification given the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or how parameters interact, leaving the agent with insufficient information to invoke the tool correctly without trial and error.
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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'latest' but doesn't explain how parameters like 'first,' 'skip,' 'orderBy,' 'orderDirection,' or 'type_in' affect the retrieval. Without this, the agent cannot understand how to control or filter transactions effectively.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose as 'Get latest vault transactions,' which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_vault_reallocates' or 'get_vault_allocation,' leaving ambiguity about what specific transaction types or scope it covers compared to alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_vault_reallocates' or 'get_vault_allocation.' The description implies it retrieves transactions but offers no context on use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, rate limits, error conditions, or what format/scope the historical data returns. This leaves critical behavioral aspects completely undocumented.
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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple data retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (2 parameters with nested objects, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to interpret results, or provide necessary context about the parameters. For a historical data retrieval tool with time-based filtering, more completeness is needed.
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%, so the description must compensate but fails to do so. It mentions 'historical APY data' which implies time-based parameters, but doesn't explain the required 'address' and 'options' parameters, their purposes, or the meaning of the interval enum values. The description adds minimal value beyond what's inferred from the tool name.
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 clearly states the action ('Get historical APY data') and the resource ('for a vault'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from general APY tools by specifying 'vault' context, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'get_historical_apy' tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the sibling 'get_historical_apy' tool, nor does it specify prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or limitations for retrieving vault-specific APY history.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'overview' entails beyond positions and transactions. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes specific details like 'positions and transactions', making it appropriately sized and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter usage, return values, or behavioral traits, leaving gaps that hinder an agent's ability to invoke the tool correctly in context with siblings.
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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions no parameters, failing to explain the meaning of 'address' and 'chainId' or their roles in fetching the account overview. This leaves key input semantics unclear beyond what the bare schema provides.
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 clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('account overview'), specifying it includes 'positions and transactions'. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_asset_price or get_markets, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_market_positions or get_vault_positions, which might overlap in scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on sibling tool names like get_market_positions or get_vault_positions without explicit direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, error conditions, or the format of returned APY data, leaving significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter meanings, return values, or behavioral traits, making it inadequate for the agent to fully understand how to use this tool effectively in context.
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%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'marketUniqueKey', 'chainId', or the timestamps represent, nor clarify the 'interval' enum options' meanings. This leaves all 5 parameters semantically undocumented.
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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'historical APY data for a specific market', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling 'get_vault_apy_history', which appears to serve a similar purpose for vaults rather than markets, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_vault_apy_history' or other sibling tools. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing valid market identifiers or timestamp ranges, which could help the agent decide appropriateness.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only vaguely mentions 'filtering and pagination'. It fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, response format, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. This leaves significant gaps for an agent.
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 extremely concise with a single sentence that is front-loaded and wastes no words. Every part ('Get liquidation events with filtering and pagination') contributes directly to the tool's function, making it efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (7 parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, return values, error conditions, and operational constraints, making it inadequate for an agent to effectively use this tool without guesswork.
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%, so the description must compensate but only generically references 'filtering and pagination'. It does not explain the meaning, purpose, or usage of any of the 7 parameters (e.g., endTimestamp, marketUniqueKeys, orderBy), leaving them undocumented and ambiguous.
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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('liquidation events'), specifying the action and target. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on liquidation events rather than accounts, markets, vaults, or other data types. However, it lacks specificity about the data source or system context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions 'filtering and pagination' but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify scenarios, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling tools like get_markets or get_vault_transactions, leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states a read operation ('Get'), implying it's likely safe, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what the return format might be. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with parameters.
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 a single, clear sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the parameters, return values, or behavioral aspects, making it inadequate for reliable tool invocation in this context.
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%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description mentions 'for a specific market', which hints at the 'address' parameter but doesn't explain what 'address' or 'chainId' mean, their formats, or how they relate to the market. It adds minimal value beyond the schema.
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 clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('vault allocation for a specific market'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from siblings like 'get_vaults' or 'get_vault_positions', which might also relate to vaults, so it lacks explicit differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_vaults' and 'get_vault_positions', there's no indication of context or prerequisites, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action without mentioning whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what the return format looks like. This is inadequate for a tool with 5 parameters and no output 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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's apparent complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't provide enough context about what 'positions' entails, how to interpret parameters, or what to expect in return, making it insufficient for effective tool use.
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%, so the description must compensate, but it adds no parameter information beyond implying 'vaultAddress' is needed. It doesn't explain what 'positions' means, what the ordering/skipping parameters do, or how results are structured, leaving most parameters undocumented.
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 clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('positions for a specific vault'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_vault_allocation' or 'get_vaults', but the specificity of 'positions' provides some distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get_vault_allocation' or 'get_market_positions', leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'retrieves' data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't mention any behavioral traits such as pagination (suggested by 'first' and 'skip' parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'current states' entails. This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective use.
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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by directly stating what the tool does, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter usage, return values, or behavioral constraints, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool correctly in context with its siblings.
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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'all vaults' but doesn't explain the four parameters (first, orderBy, orderDirection, skip), their purposes, or how they affect retrieval (e.g., pagination, sorting). This fails to add meaningful context beyond the bare schema.
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 clearly states the verb 'Retrieves' and the resource 'all vaults with their current states', which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_vault_positions' or 'get_vault_allocation', which might also retrieve vault-related data but with different scopes or details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools like 'get_vault_positions' or 'get_vault_allocation', there's no indication of what makes this tool unique or when it's the appropriate choice, leaving the agent to guess based on names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving 'current' information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't address key aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or error handling. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of financial data retrieval, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'yield information' entails, the format of returned data, or potential limitations, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively.
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 the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as clarifying the relationship between parameters or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current price and yield information for specific assets'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_markets' or 'get_oracle_details', which might also provide price-related information, so it misses the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_markets' and 'get_historical_apy' that might overlap in functionality, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'pagination and ordering' which are useful behavioral traits, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what the response format looks like. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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 a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality and key behavioral aspects (pagination and ordering). Every word earns its place with zero redundancy. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.
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?
Given 5 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and mentions pagination/ordering behavior, but doesn't address what the tool returns, error conditions, or other contextual information that would help an agent use it effectively. The description works with the schema but leaves gaps in behavioral understanding.
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 the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'pagination and ordering' which corresponds to 'first', 'skip', 'orderBy', and 'orderDirection' parameters, but doesn't provide additional semantic context. With complete schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'positions overview for specific markets', making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_markets' (general market info) and 'get_vault_positions' (vault-specific positions), but doesn't explicitly contrast them. The description is specific about what's being retrieved but could be more precise about what 'positions overview' entails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate compared to siblings like 'get_vault_positions' or 'get_account_overview', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage context is implied through the mention of 'specific markets' but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'pagination, ordering, and filtering support' which adds some behavioral context beyond basic retrieval, but it doesn't disclose critical traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the return format looks like (e.g., list structure, data fields). For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.
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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists key features without waste. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete for a read-only tool: it specifies the resource and key features. However, it lacks details on return values, error cases, or integration with siblings, which would be helpful for an agent to use it effectively in context with other tools like 'get_whitelisted_markets'.
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 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters well (e.g., 'first' as 'Number of items to return', enums for 'orderBy' and 'orderDirection'). The description adds value by summarizing the capabilities ('pagination, ordering, and filtering support'), but it doesn't provide additional meaning beyond what the schema offers for individual parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.
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 clearly states the action ('Retrieves') and resource ('markets from Morpho'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get_whitelisted_markets' or 'get_vaults', which might also retrieve market-related data, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions 'pagination, ordering, and filtering support' which implies usage for data retrieval, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_whitelisted_markets' or 'get_vaults'. There are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, leaving the agent to infer context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it 'retrieves' without detailing behavior like response format, pagination, error conditions, or authentication requirements. It's minimal for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain what 'whitelisted markets' means in context, the return format, or how this differs operationally from 'get_markets', leaving gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and a baseline of 4 is appropriate for this case.
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 clearly states the verb ('retrieves') and resource ('whitelisted markets from Morpho'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from sibling 'get_markets' by specifying 'only whitelisted', but could be more explicit about the distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_markets'. The description implies a filtered subset but doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over the broader market retrieval tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-morpho-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/crazyrabbitLTC/mcp-morpho-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/crazyrabbitLTC/mcp-morpho-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-morpho-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/crazyrabbitLTC/mcp-morpho-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/crazyrabbitLTC/mcp-morpho-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/crazyrabbitLTC/mcp-morpho-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server