CSPR[dot]trade MCP

get_liquidity_positions

Retrieve liquidity positions for a specific account on the Casper Network DEX to monitor pool participation and holdings.

Instructions

Get liquidity positions for an account

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": {
      "account_public_key": "<account_public_key>"
    },
    "name": "get_liquidity_positions"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`account_public_key`	Yes	Account public key (hex)
`currency`	No	Fiat currency code

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Mar 24, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Zero annotations provided, so description bears full disclosure burden. It states the action but fails to indicate this is read-only/safe, doesn't describe return structure, pagination, or whether the currency parameter filters vs prices the results.

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?

Extremely brief at 7 words, but front-loaded with verb and no filler. However, the extreme brevity contributes to under-specification in other dimensions—it leaves value on the table rather than being appropriately-sized for a tool with 12 siblings.

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?

Minimally viable for a 2-parameter read operation with good schema coverage. Lacks behavioral richness expected given the financial context ( cryptocurrency/DeFi) and the complexity implied by siblings like build_swap and get_impermanent_loss.

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% with explicit descriptions for both account_public_key and currency. The description mentions 'account' which loosely maps to the required parameter, but adds no syntax details, format examples, or semantic relationships between the two params.

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?

Clear verb+resource construction ('Get liquidity positions'), and 'for an account' scopes it to user-specific holdings. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_impermanent_loss or get_swap_history which may also require account context.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

Provides no guidance on when to use this read operation versus the build_add_liquidity/build_remove_liquidity siblings, nor when to prefer get_impermanent_loss for analysis. No prerequisites or conditions mentioned.

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

Deploy Server