Graph AAVE MCP

get_aave_liquidations

Fetch AAVE liquidation events by chain, liquidator, or user address. Returns collateral seized, debt repaid, amounts, and timestamp.

Instructions

Use this when the user asks about AAVE liquidation events — 'Show me recent liquidations on Ethereum', 'Has address 0x... been liquidated?', 'Who are the top liquidators on Arbitrum?', 'What collateral is being seized most?'. Returns: liquidator address, liquidated user, collateral asset seized, debt asset repaid, amounts, and timestamp. Liquidations occur when a user's health factor drops below 1.0.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "chain": "<chain>"
    },
    "name": "get_aave_liquidations"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`chain`	Yes	Chain identifier
`first`	No	Number of liquidation events to return (1–100, default 20)
`liquidator`	No	Optional: filter by liquidator address
`userAddress`	No	Optional: filter by the address that was liquidated

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv3.0.0Apr 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains return fields and the health factor condition, but does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, or any potential side effects (though read-only). Minimal behavioral disclosure.

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?

Extremely concise and front-loaded with usage examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Structure is efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description covers return fields and basic context, but lacks details on data format, ordering, and pagination. Partially complete for a 4-parameter tool.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about liquidation events but does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond example queries. No additional meaning beyond schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it's for AAVE liquidation events with specific example queries, making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tool 'get_risk_liquidations', which might cover similar non-AAVE liquidations.

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?

Provides explicit usage scenarios with example questions, but lacks guidance on when NOT to use this tool or mention of alternatives like 'get_risk_liquidations'. No exclusions or contextual boundaries.

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

Deploy Server