LiquidVision — Crypto Derivatives Data

explain_market

Read-onlyIdempotent

AI risk-intelligence answer: ask e.g. 'Why did BTC drop 4%?' and get a concise grounded explanation (liquidation cascades, funding extremes, where the positions sit, next risk zone) computed from live derivatives data across 13 venues (CEXs, Hyperliquid and GMX).

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": {
      "question": "<question>"
    },
    "name": "explain_market"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`symbol`	No	Contract as BASEUSDT, e.g. BTCUSDT, ETHUSDT, SOLUSDT (1000PEPE and kPEPE fold to PEPEUSDT).	BTCUSDT
`question`	Yes	The question in plain words, English or Russian.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedNov 6, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / question / description

Added value: +"The question in plain words, English or Russian."

addedInput schema / properties / symbol / description

Added value: +"Contract as BASEUSDT, e.g. BTCUSDT, ETHUSDT, SOLUSDT (1000PEPE and kPEPE fold to PEPEUSDT)."

First observedSep 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the description's added value is the data provenance: live derivatives data across 13 venues including Hyperliquid and GMX, plus the composition of the answer. It still doesn't mention latency, caching, or whether answers are reproducible, which matters for open-world live-data tools.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with the example question early and no filler sentences. The 'AI risk-intelligence answer' phrasing is slightly marketing-flavored but still conveys that the output is generated prose rather than raw metrics.

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 no output schema, the description does the necessary work of listing the answer's components (liquidation cascades, funding extremes, positioning, next risk zone) and the data sources, which is enough for an agent to decide the tool fits and to invoke it with just a question.

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 symbol default/base-quoting rules and question-language support fully documented. The description only reinforces the question parameter via an example and adds no semantics beyond the schema, so the 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 names a specific resource (a grounded risk explanation for a market move) and a concrete example question, so the agent can tell this is a narrative/analytical answer tool rather than a raw-data fetcher. It does not, however, contrast itself with similar siblings such as ask or get_market_brief, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 shown only by example ('Why did BTC drop 4%?'), which implies the call pattern, and the answer shape hints at when the tool is useful. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the clearly overlapping siblings (ask, get_market_brief, get_positioning_regime) that an agent would want to route between.

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

All LiquidVision — Crypto Derivatives Data tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?