Retrieve liquidation records for liquidity mining positions with cursor-based pagination. Filter by base coin, quote coin, time range, and limit to track liquidation events.
Query liquidation records for Liquidity Mining positions with cursor-based pagination.
Rate Limit: 10 req/s (UID)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| endTime | No | ||
| baseCoin | No | ||
| quoteCoin | No | ||
| startTime | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds useful behavioral context by mentioning cursor-based pagination and a specific rate limit of 10 req/s per UID. It does not contradict the annotations.
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 extremely concise: one purpose sentence and one rate-limit line. Both sentences earn their place, and the core behavior is front-loaded.
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?
For a tool with six optional parameters, no output schema, and no per-parameter descriptions, this is incomplete. The description omits response shape, pagination mechanics beyond the label, default time ranges, and how the coin filters interact. An agent can tell what the tool does but not fully predict its behavior or output.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for six undocumented parameters. It only adds the notion of 'cursor-based pagination,' which helps explain the cursor field, but it does not clarify startTime/endTime semantics, baseCoin/quoteCoin filters, limit behavior, or how the cursor is obtained or used.
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 a specific verb and resource: 'Query liquidation records for Liquidity Mining positions.' This differentiates it from sibling tools like getLiquidityMiningOrders, getLiquidityMiningPositions, and getLiquidityMiningProducts. However, it does not explicitly name any sibling to distinguish against, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many related getLiquidityMining* tools. There are no conditions, exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives mentioned. The usage context is only implied by the tool's name and resource focus.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.