LiquidVision — Crypto Derivatives Data

get_orderbook_heatmap

Read-onlyIdempotent

[measured] Resting limit orders over time on ONE exchange: cells of (time bucket, price bucket, quantity in coins) from archived order-book snapshots, with price_min, price_max, price_step and time_step (seconds) describing the grid. Shows where bid and ask walls stood and when they were pulled; not liquidations (see get_liquidation_heatmap for those) and not trades (get_footprint). exchange: binance | bybit | okx. symbol: BTCUSDT, ETHUSDT or SOLUSDT only. minutes: 1 to 1440.

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": {
      "exchange": "<exchange>",
      "symbol": "<symbol>"
    },
    "name": "get_orderbook_heatmap"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedNov 6, 2026

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 / minutes / description
```
Added value: +"Look-back window in minutes."
```

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

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description's job is data provenance and shape — it names archived order-book snapshots, notes single-exchange aggregation, and discloses that price_min/price_max/price_step/time_step describe the returned grid. With no output schema, describing the cell tuple is genuinely load-bearing. It does not mention latency, snapshot granularity limits beyond time_step, or coverage gaps in archives.

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?

Dense and front-loaded — the measured-data marker and the resource definition come first, then exclusions, then the parameter constraints. Parenthetical asides and the trailing enum listing are efficient, though the paragraph is crammed and would scan faster as short lines.

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 read-only analytical tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential return shape and the sibling disambiguation an agent needs. Minor gap: the grid fields (price_min, price_step, time_step) are described as existing but not explained as automatic/derived versus requestable, which could mislead an agent into trying to pass them.

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 baseline is 3; the description earns above baseline by narrowing meaning: it restricts exchange to binance|bybit|okx and symbol to BTCUSDT/ETHUSDT/SOLUSDT, where the schema's generic venue list would otherwise imply all 13 are valid. It also attaches the 1-1440 bound to minutes.

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 verb and resource — resting limit orders over time on one exchange — and defines the returned cell structure (time bucket, price bucket, quantity in coins). Explicitly distinguishes itself from get_liquidation_heatmap and get_footprint, so an agent can route correctly without reading schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Names both alternatives and the condition that selects them ('not liquidations ... not trades'), plus scope constraints: ONE exchange, minute window 1-1440, three symbols. Lacks a positive statement of the analytical case it answers (e.g. 'use to find bid/ask walls'), but the exclusions and constraints give clear selection guidance.

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?