get_last_liquidationFREE taster: last liquidation for SOL, BTC, ETH, XRP and DOGE (15-min delayed). Real-time via get_recent_liquidations. Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | the get_last_liquidation payload | |
| tool | Yes | the tool that produced this payload |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "description": "the get_last_liquidation payload",
+ "propertyNames": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "tool": {
+ "const": "get_last_liquidation",
+ "description": "the tool that produced this payload",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "tool",
+ "data"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: the 15-minute delay, the limited asset universe, and the free/taster nature of the data.
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?
The description is short and front-loaded with the key facts. The word 'Free' appears twice, which is slightly redundant, but the overall structure is efficient and scannable.
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?
With no parameters, a rich output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers the essential context: what data is returned, for which assets, with what delay, and when to use the real-time alternative. It is complete for a no-argument read-only tool.
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?
There are zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately focuses on scope and data freshness rather than parameter details, since none exist.
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 states the resource ('last liquidation'), the specific assets covered (SOL, BTC, ETH, XRP, DOGE), and the data delay. It also distinguishes itself from get_recent_liquidations by explicitly pointing to that sibling for real-time data.
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?
It names the alternative tool (get_recent_liquidations) and the condition for choosing it ('Real-time'). The 'FREE taster' phrasing implies this is for a free, delayed sample, though it does not explicitly state 'use this when you need delayed data'.
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.