LiquidVision — Crypto Derivatives Data

get_hl_liquidation_map

Read-onlyIdempotent

[measured, RISK AHEAD, Hyperliquid] REAL open positions on Hyperliquid binned by the liquidation price the exchange itself reports: the 10,000 largest accounts plus every account that traded since the reader started (~10,000 accounts, ~40-45% of venue open interest, stated in covered_long_pct/covered_short_pct). Not a model. Use this for Hyperliquid; use get_lighter_liquidation_map for Lighter and get_liquidation_map (modeled) for the CEXs. Returns long/short notional per bin, cumulative curves and the largest positions. range: 12h | 1d | 3d | 7d | max (±100%, recommended: large accounts run low leverage).

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_hl_liquidation_map"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`range`	No	Price range around the current price: 12h \| 1d \| 3d \| 7d (and 'max' where stated), the traded range of that window.	1d
`symbol`	Yes	Contract as BASEUSDT, e.g. BTCUSDT, ETHUSDT, SOLUSDT (1000PEPE and kPEPE fold to PEPEUSDT).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedNov 6, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / range / description

Added value: +"Price range around the current price: 12h | 1d | 3d | 7d (and 'max' where stated), the traded range of that window."

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

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds substantive context beyond them: the data is exchange-reported rather than modeled, coverage is limited to the 10,000 largest accounts plus those traded since the reader started, and that coverage is quantified as ~40-45% of venue open interest exposed via covered_long_pct/covered_short_pct. Return contents (long/short notional per bin, cumulative curves, largest positions) are also disclosed.

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?

Front-loaded with the key differentiator ('REAL open positions... Not a model') and the sibling routing before details. It is dense with nested parentheticals that slightly slow parsing, but nearly every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

For a two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers provenance, coverage limits, what is returned, symbol universe quirks (via schema), and channel selection. Nothing essential to correct invocation appears missing.

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 adds value the schema does not: it lists the valid range values (12h | 1d | 3d | 7d | max) in a schema with no enums, and advises that 'max' applies 'where stated' plus a recommended default for large-account low-leverage behavior.

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?

States a specific resource and method: real open positions on Hyperliquid binned by the exchange-reported liquidation price, explicitly 'Not a model.' It also distinguishes itself from two siblings by name (get_lighter_liquidation_map and get_liquidation_map), so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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?

Explicit routing: 'Use this for Hyperliquid; use get_lighter_liquidation_map for Lighter and get_liquidation_map (modeled) for the CEXs.' It even gives a parameter-level recommendation ('recommended: large accounts run low leverage') for the range value.

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?