verify_liquidity_invariant
Check trade execution bounds.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| volume | No | ||
| impact_bps | No |
1cnf-verifier
TDQS
C2.2/5.0
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. 'Check' implies a validation-style operation, but the description does not state return behavior, failure semantics, or whether the tool merely validates or also enforces bounds.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler, making it concise. However, it is concise because it omits necessary information rather than because it efficiently captures the tool's behavior.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, no required parameters, and 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves too much unexplained. An agent would have to infer parameter meaning, output format, and the actual liquidity invariant logic from the tool name alone.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention volume or impact_bps at all. It does not explain what these integers represent, what units or ranges are expected, or how they relate to trade execution bounds.
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 uses a verb ('Check') and a resource ('trade execution bounds'), so it is not a tautology and partially distinguishes this tool from sibling policy/blacklist verifiers. However, 'trade execution bounds' is vague and does not explicitly connect to the 'liquidity invariant' in the tool name, leaving the actual purpose under-specified.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as verify_1cnf_invariants, verify_risk_policy, or check_threat_blacklist. The one-line description gives no context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
C2.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Each tool targets a distinct verification concern—hashes, state intervals, agent policies, plan trajectories, embeddings, trade bounds, memory assertions, and risk vectors. The close pairing of verify_1cnf_invariants and verify_liquidity_invariant is mitigated by their clear descriptions, though both being 'invariant' checks creates slight potential for confusion.
Naming Consistency4/5
The overwhelming majority follow a consistent verify_<domain> pattern, making the set predictable. The single exception is check_threat_blacklist, which swaps 'verify' for 'check', creating a minor deviation without breaking overall readability.
Tool Count5/5
Eight tools is well within the ideal range and suits a verification-focused server. Each tool covers a distinct verification category, and none feel redundant or superfluous.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers a broad set of verification domains—security, invariants, planning, embeddings, liquidity, memory, and risk. It lacks an aggregate 'run all verifications' or status tool, but the individual coverage is strong enough that agents can perform the intended verification workflows.