seneschal_recent_liquidationsLiquidations observed in the recent past, including both ones won by other liquidators (outcome=won_by_other) and ones we ourselves landed (outcome=we_landed). Sorted by timestamp descending.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max rows. Default 50, max 500. | |
| protocol | No | Restrict to one protocol. | |
| since_ms | No | Unix epoch milliseconds. Defaults to now − 24h. |
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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses useful behavioral details (both outcome categories, sorting by timestamp descending), but omits read-only status, default time window (since_ms defaults to now−24h), limit default, or pagination behavior.
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?
One focused sentence front-loads the subject ('Liquidations observed in the recent past') and packs key details without filler. Every phrase earns its place.
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?
For a simple list tool with fully documented parameters, the description plus schema is adequate. However, without an output schema or annotations, it would benefit from stating the response shape, default time range, and read-only nature to make it fully self-contained.
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?
Input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions (limit, protocol, since_ms), so baseline is 3. The description adds context about result outcome categories but does not elaborate on parameter format or constraints beyond the schema.
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 identifies the resource (recent liquidations) and distinguishes two included outcome categories, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'returns.' It is specific enough to separate from sibling tools, none of which cover liquidations directly.
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?
Usage is implied: if you need to see recently observed liquidations, this is the tool. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives like seneschal_list_at_risk_borrowers or seneschal_list_borrowers, nor any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools are grouped by domain (board, private_watch, zecmon) with clear lifecycle separation, but seneschal_list_at_risk_borrowers and seneschal_list_borrowers overlap heavily, and the USDC vs crypto variants of private_watch_create/topup could be confused without careful reading.
Most tools follow a seneschal_<domain>_<action> pattern, but verb/noun order varies (get_borrower vs list_borrowers vs board_list) and outliers like seneschal_health and seneschal_q break the pattern.
At 35 tools, the server is definitely heavy, but it covers multiple distinct domains (DeFi data, privacy-chain monitoring, notice boards, payments), so the count is at the high end of reasonable rather than absurdly bloated.
Core workflows are well covered: borrower discovery/analysis, liquidations, private watch lifecycle, Zcash scanning lifecycle, board operations, and checkout invoices. Minor gaps like board deletion or watch cancellation exist but are workaround-able.