Graph AAVE MCP

get_risk_liquidations

Retrieve liquidation events from AAVE risk subgraphs with collateral asset, debt asset, amounts, liquidator, and transaction hash. Filter by chain or liquidated user.

Instructions

Get liquidation events from the risk subgraph — includes collateral asset, debt asset, amounts, liquidator, and transaction hash. Complements get_aave_liquidations with risk-specific context. Use when asked: 'Show recent liquidations on Base', 'Was this wallet liquidated?', 'What collateral was seized?'.

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_risk_liquidations"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`chain`	Yes	Liquidation risk chain: risk-ethereum, risk-arbitrum, risk-base, risk-polygon, risk-optimism
`first`	No	Number of events (default 25)
`userAddress`	No	Optional: filter by liquidated user

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv3.0.0Apr 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It states the source and fields but does not disclose behaviors like pagination limits, error handling, or read-only nature. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Three sentences: one for purpose, one for relation to sibling, one for usage examples. Efficient and front-loaded.

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?

Given 3 simple parameters and no output schema, description is fairly complete. It mentions output fields and example queries, but lacks explicit detail on return structure or edge cases.

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% and parameters are well-described in schema. Description adds no further semantic insight beyond the schema fields.

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?

The description clearly states it gets liquidation events from the risk subgraph, listing key fields. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling get_aave_liquidations, indicating complementarity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit example queries: 'Show recent liquidations on Base', 'Was this wallet liquidated?', 'What collateral was seized?' and mentions complementarity, guiding when to choose this tool.

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

Deploy Server