SiteCheck Crypto & Finance

OKX perpetual-swap liquidations for one underlying

crypto_crypto_liquidations_feed

Read-only

OKX perpetual-swap liquidations for one underlying (e.g. BTC-USD): the most recent 100 filled forced liquidations, split into long and short liquidated USD value, with the largest events. Covers OKX only, and the window is the latest 100 events, not a fixed 24h total. Other exchanges' liquidation streams are not reported. Related tools on this server, for a different need: crypto_crypto_fundraising_rounds when you need recent crypto and Web3 venture funding rounds; crypto_crypto_hack_rekt_database when you need Rekt News leaderboard of the largest crypto hacks. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "crypto_crypto_liquidations_feed"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`uly`	No	OKX underlying, e.g. BTC-USD, ETH-USD

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`instId`	No
`source`	No
`largest`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`eventCount`	No
`underlying`	No
`longSharePct`	No
`newestEventTime`	No
`oldestEventTime`	No
`longLiquidatedUsd`	No
`shortLiquidatedUsd`	No
`totalLiquidatedUsd`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations by disclosing the sampling window semantics (last 100 events rather than a time-based total), the decomposition of the output into long/short USD value, and the billing model — $0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 on Base, Solana or Arc, with failed calls not charged. The charge model is exactly the kind of behavior an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and the two most decision-relevant caveats (OKX-only, 100-event window) before the pricing note. The 'Related tools' sentence naming fundraising rounds and hack leaderboards is tangential to a liquidation feed and is the one passage that doesn't fully earn its space.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description still covers scope, sampling window, aggregation shape, and cost. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether to call this tool or how to invoke it is missing.

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?

Only one parameter, `uly`, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage with the same BTC-USD/ETH-USD examples used in the description. The description adds no extra constraint or format detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — most recent 100 filled forced liquidations on OKX perpetual swaps for one underlying — and adds the shape of the payload (long vs short liquidated USD value plus largest events). It also explicitly bounds the scope ('Covers OKX only'), so an agent can separate it from other-exchange or aggregate liquidation sources in the sibling list.

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?

Gives a genuinely useful when-not caveat: the window is the latest 100 events, not a fixed 24h total, and other exchanges' liquidation streams are not reported. The remaining 'related tools' pointers (fundraising rounds, Rekt hacks) are for clearly different needs and read more like catalog routing than real alternatives for liquidation data, so the guidance is clear but not a full when-to-use/alternative map.

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

All SiteCheck Crypto & Finance tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?