Skip to main content
Glama

mcp

by com.bykaranteli

LiqMap: estimated liquidation clusters with real prints overlaid

get_liqmap
Read-only

Call this when the user asks where liquidation clusters or liquidity pools sit for a perpetual, where leveraged longs/shorts would get liquidated, or for a liquidation heatmap reading. Returns the public LiqMap snapshot for one symbol: modeled liquidation levels by price, zone aggregates and real liquidation prints from six venues. Public tier serves the 24h view; other intervals are a member feature at the source page.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
symbolNoSymbol like BTCUSDT (bare BTC accepted). Default BTCUSDT.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description does not need to re-establish safety. It adds valuable behavioral context by noting the public tier only serves the 24h view and that other intervals are a member feature, plus the one-symbol scope and six-venue coverage. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is front-loaded with trigger conditions and then gives the return content and tier limitation. It is slightly wordy with synonyms ('clusters or liquidity pools'), but every sentence carries useful information and there is no filler.

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, the description compensates by enumerating the key return components and the public/member tier constraint. The optional parameter's default and format live in the schema. It is complete enough for an agent to call correctly, though it does not cover response shape or potential errors.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%: the symbol parameter already has a pattern, example, and default. The description only reinforces 'one symbol' and does not add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the resource ('LiqMap snapshot'), scope ('one symbol', 'perpetual'), and what it returns (modeled liquidation levels, zone aggregates, real prints from six venues). It is clearly differentiated from generic liquidation-event tools by focusing on clusters/heatmap, but it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools.

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?

It explicitly says 'Call this when the user asks...' and gives concrete query phrasings, such as 'where liquidation clusters or liquidity pools sit' and 'liquidation heatmap reading.' It stops short of stating when not to use it or pointing to alternatives like get_liquidations, so it is clear but lacks exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All mcp toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools are highly specific with clear triggers in their descriptions, distinguishing metrics like funding, liquidations, and options flow. Some overlap exists—for instance, get_funding_heatmap and get_top_movers both cover extreme funding, and get_pressure_scores, get_psi_charge, and get_top_movers all address derivative stress—but the descriptions provide enough differentiation for an agent to pick correctly.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow the consistent 'get_' prefix followed by descriptive snake_case names that clearly indicate the data domain (e.g., get_etf_flows, get_funding_heatmap). The pattern is uniform and predictable across the entire set.

Tool Count4/5

At 33 tools, the server is on the heavy side, but the domain of crypto derivatives and on-chain data is broad, and each tool covers a distinct niche metric or analysis. While slightly above the ideal range, the count is justified for the comprehensive scope, though it may be unwieldy for an agent to load at once.

Completeness5/5

The surface is remarkably complete for crypto market analysis: it covers sentiment (get_market_indices), derivatives (funding, open interest, liquidations, options), macro (get_macro_liquidity, get_cot_positioning), on-chain (get_network_health, get_quantum_exposure), and integrity (get_recent_signals, get_slippage). Historical context and conditional analysis are also provided (get_factor_board, get_metric_context). No major dead ends are apparent.

Resources