LiquidVision — Crypto Derivatives Data

get_funding_settlements

Read-onlyIdempotent

Settled funding rates, one row per settlement, from Binance and Bybit history — up to 730 days for any pool coin (e.g. BTCUSDT). The backtest series; get_funding_history is the live 10-second archive since July 2026.

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": {
      "symbol": "<symbol>"
    },
    "name": "get_funding_settlements"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`days`	No	Look-back window in days.
`symbol`	Yes	Contract as BASEUSDT, e.g. BTCUSDT, ETHUSDT, SOLUSDT (1000PEPE and kPEPE fold to PEPEUSDT).
`exchange`	No	Venue id (binance, bybit, okx, bitget, hyperliquid, gate, htx, kucoin, mexc, bingx, aster, kraken, gmx) or 'all' where the tool allows it.	all

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedNov 6, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / days / description
```
Added value: +"Look-back window in days."
```

addedInput schema / properties / exchange / description

Added value: +"Venue id (binance, bybit, okx, bitget, hyperliquid, gate, htx, kucoin, mexc, bingx, aster, kraken, gmx) or 'all' where the tool allows it."

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

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the description's job is to add constraints — and it does: one row per settlement, up to a 730-day ceiling, and its position relative to the live archive. However, it says the data comes 'from Binance and Bybit history' while the exchange parameter lists thirteen venues, which creates a factual ambiguity an agent will trip over.

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, zero filler. The core identity and granularity come first, the retention limit second, and the sibling routing last — a front-loaded structure that reads well under time pressure.

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?

With no output schema, annotations covering the safety profile, and fully documented parameters, the description covers the essentials: sources, granularity, look-back ceiling, and alternative. It stops short of indicating what a settlement row contains (rate, timestamp, exchange) or pagination behavior, which would help for a row-returning tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns more by bounding the 'days' parameter at 730 and clarifying the symbol format ('any pool coin (e.g. BTCUSDT)'). It does not resolve the conflict between 'Binance and Bybit' and the thirteen-value exchange parameter, which is the one place added meaning was needed.

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?

The description names a specific resource and granularity — 'Settled funding rates, one row per settlement' — plus source coverage and a retention window. It also explicitly contrasts itself with the confusable sibling get_funding_history, so an agent can distinguish it without opening a schema. The only residual ambiguity is versus get_funding_rates, which is not mentioned.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It names the alternative explicitly ('get_funding_history is the live 10-second archive since July 2026') and gives the condition that selects this tool: historical backtesting. That is a real when-to-use rule rather than an implied one, matching the strongest calibration pattern.

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?