Retrieve auto-deleveraging (ADL) events that affected a specific account, using its 0x address and API credentials. Use it to audit ADL impacts and review liquidation history.
Get the auto-deleveraging (ADL) events that touched a given account. Requires API credentials.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of records to return (max 1000, default 100). | |
| address | Yes | Account address (0x-prefixed hex). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the authentication requirement, which is genuinely valuable and not derivable from the schema. It still omits any hint of result ordering, pagination semantics beyond the schema's limit field, or whether history is bounded in time.
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?
Two short sentences, zero waste, with the core purpose front-loaded before the credential prerequisite. Nothing redundant or padded.
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 two-parameter account-scoped read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what it fetches, whom it fetches for, and the auth requirement. Minor gaps remain around result ordering/volume and how it relates to the account-vs-market ADL siblings.
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 100% (both 'address' and 'limit' are documented with format and bounds), so the schema already does the heavy lifting and the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.
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?
States a specific verb ('Get') plus the exact resource (auto-deleveraging events) and scopes it to 'a given account', which implicitly separates it from the market-wide siblings fetch_adl_events and get_market_adl_events. It does not, however, name those siblings or explain how it differs from the near-duplicate get_adl_history.
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 prerequisite ('Requires API credentials') is disclosed, which is useful context, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of when to prefer fetch_adl_events or get_adl_history instead. Usage is only implied by the account-scoped framing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.