SiteCheck Crypto & Finance

Uniswap V3 liquidity distribution for an Ethereum pool

crypto_uniswap_v3_ticks

Read-only

Uniswap V3 liquidity distribution for an Ethereum pool, read on-chain: tokens, fee tier, tick spacing, current tick and price (both directions, decimals applied), in-range liquidity, and every initialized tick within a window around the price with its price, liquidityNet and the active liquidity of the range above it — the shape of concentrated liquidity. Default pool: USDC/WETH 0.05%. Price: $0.003 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_uniswap_v3_ticks"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pool`	No	Uniswap V3 pool address on Ethereum (default USDC/WETH 0.05%)
`words`	No	Tick-bitmap words to scan each side of the price, 1 to 5 (default 2; one word = 256 tick spacings)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pool`	No
`chain`	No
`price`	No
`ticks`	No
`source`	No
`token0`	No
`token1`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`feeTierPct`	No
`currentTick`	No
`tickSpacing`	No
`scannedTicks`	No
`inRangeLiquidity`	No
`initializedTicks`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, the description discloses that data is read on-chain, the exact cost ($0.003 per successful call), the payment rail (x402 on Base, Solana or Arc), and that failed calls are not charged — genuinely useful pre-call context. It does not mention caching, rate limits, or failure modes, so it stops short of full transparency.

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 purpose and returned fields are front-loaded in one dense but well-organized sentence, followed by a compact defaults/price sentence. Every clause carries information; the only weakness is that the first sentence is long enough to be harder to skim than a short bulleted field list would be.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't restate return structure, and annotations cover safety; what remains — cost, payment mechanism, default pool, and the meaning of the tick window — is all present. Minor gaps are units/formatting details for prices and behavior on invalid or non-V3 pool addresses.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines both 'pool' and 'words' including the 1-5 range and default. The description adds only indirect meaning, framing the tick scan as 'a window around the price' and noting decimals are applied; it does not clarify what each additional word costs in payload size or precision.

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-less but precise resource: on-chain Uniswap V3 liquidity distribution for an Ethereum pool, then enumerates exactly what is returned (tokens, fee tier, tick spacing, current tick/price, in-range liquidity, initialized ticks with liquidityNet). This clearly separates it from sibling pool tools such as crypto_dex_pool_liquidity or crypto_curve_gauge_weights, which do not expose tick-level concentration.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the mention of 'the shape of concentrated liquidity' hints at the analytical use case, and a default pool (USDC/WETH 0.05%) is supplied. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to an alternative sibling tool for other DEXes or non-V3 pools.

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?