PAID $0.02. Recent ON-CHAIN liquidation events across Base venues (Moonwell + Aave v3 + Morpho Blue) — actual events per venue plus a cross-venue liquidator leaderboard and per-venue counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| x402Payment | No | Base64 x402 payment header (EIP-3009 exact-evm) for THIS route+price. Omit to receive the machine-readable payment requirements, then call again with it. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses a payment requirement ('PAID $0.02') and indicates on-chain interaction, which are important behavioral traits. It does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or has side effects, but the nature of the data (events, counts) suggests a query operation. Given no annotations, the description partially covers transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that packs essential information: data source, venues, output structure, and cost. No redundant words or vague phrases; it is well-structured and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description gives a solid overview of the tool's purpose and output, sufficient for an agent to decide whether to use it. It does not cover edge cases or error handling, but none are expected for a read-only query tool. The payment caveat is mentioned, though the detailed payment flow is left to the schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not explain the parameters 'limit' or 'x402Payment'. Only the schema provides a description for x402Payment, and 'limit' has no description. Schema coverage is 50%, yet the description fails to compensate by clarifying how the parameters affect the output or the payment flow, leaving the agent to infer from the schema alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: retrieving recent on-chain liquidation events across specific venues (Moonwell, Aave v3, Morpho Blue). It specifies the output components (actual events, cross-venue leaderboard, per-venue counts), making it distinct from sibling tools like farm_health or farm_mispricing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on what the tool returns, allowing an agent to infer when to use it (when needing liquidation events). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the specificity of the output makes the usage context unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.