Skip to main content
Glama

Teardrop

by dev.teardrop.api

Get Liquidation Risk

get_liquidation_risk
Read-only

Assess DeFi liquidation risk for up to 50 wallets across expanded Aave v3 and Compound v3 coverage on Ethereum (chain_id=1) or Base (chain_id=8453). Returns per-wallet health factor and tiered risk classification (liquidatable, critical, warning, caution, healthy, no_debt) plus an overall_tier aggregate across protocols, and a summary count for alert dashboards. Per-protocol failures are isolated — a Compound RPC error does not blank the Aave result (and vice versa). View-only (eth_call) against hardcoded protocol addresses; duplicate wallet addresses are silently removed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chain_idNoChain ID (1=Ethereum, 8453=Base)
wallet_addressesYesWallet addresses to assess (max 50; duplicates are silently removed).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteNoOn-chain liquidation-risk snapshot at data_block_number. Aave risk_tier is derived from the numeric health factor: liquidatable (<1.0), critical (<1.05), warning (<1.15), caution (<1.5), healthy (≥1.5). Compound v3 exposes only a boolean isLiquidatable — a numeric health factor is not available from this tool; do not attempt to compute, estimate, or infer it via additional tool calls. Do not infer a Compound liquidation or breach price from this output. overall_tier is the worst tier across protocols for each wallet. Aave USD values are base-currency 8-decimal from the Aave oracle. Duplicate wallet addresses in the request are deduplicated silently.
resultsYes
summaryYes
chain_idYes
data_block_numberYes

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces with 'View-only (eth_call)' plus adds valuable behavioral details: per-protocol failure isolation, silent duplicate removal, and hardcoded addresses. These go beyond the annotation and give the agent confidence about side-effect-free operation and error handling.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then output summary, then edge-case behaviors. No fluff; every sentence contributes value and the structure is logical.

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?

With an output schema present, return types are already documented. The description adds failure isolation, deduplication, and the full tier list, covering edge cases. No major gaps remain.

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% with descriptions for both chain_id and wallet_addresses. The description repeats the max 50 and chain IDs but doesn't add new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Assess DeFi liquidation risk for up to 50 wallets across expanded Aave v3 and Compound v3 coverage.' It names the chains, protocols, and output types, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_defi_positions or get_lending_rates.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for liquidation risk assessment, but it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions. It mentions expanded coverage, which hints at comprehensiveness, but lacks direct comparison such as 'for alternative, use X instead.'

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

All Teardrop 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target distinct blockchain/DeFi resources and actions. A few pairs like get_lending_rates vs get_yield_rates and get_defi_positions vs get_liquidation_risk have overlapping boundaries, but detailed descriptions and explicit redundancy notes (e.g., get_eth_balance vs get_wallet_portfolio) reduce confusion.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_block, convert_currency, decode_transaction). The only minor deviations are noun-first names like http_fetch and web_search, but the style is uniform and predictable.

Tool Count2/5

At 27 tools, the server exceeds the 25-tool threshold for 'too many' and feels heavy. While the breadth of DeFi and crypto features justifies some size, the number is unwieldy for an agent to scan efficiently and could be consolidated (e.g., merging balance-related tools).

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers a wide range of blockchain data: balances, prices, TVL, yields, DEX quotes, gas, block/transaction details, approvals, and DeFi positions. Gaps include lack of wallet transaction history and NFT support, but these are beyond the server's clear focus on read-only DeFi analytics.

Resources