@true402.dev/mcp-server

liquidity_history

Instructions

Observed liquidity history for a Base token, from our own DEX archive. POST { token, limit? } returns every pool we have indexed for it, every liquidity-removal event with the amount removed, block and transaction hash, and the other tokens drained in the SAME transaction (one actor, several pools). Unlike a live honeypot simulation this answers what ALREADY happened — a pool drained last month simulates fine today if it was re-seeded. Every answer carries coverage, the exact block range our removal index covers, so an absence of removals is never presented as a clean bill of health. Unpaid: free while the caller's IP has free-trial calls left that day (a small daily allowance shared across the trial stalls, no wallet); otherwise returns 402. (PAID x402 service — USDC on Base; the MCP server needs a funded wallet to settle.) Price: $0.005 USD (fixed).

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": {
      "token": "<token>"
    },
    "name": "liquidity_history"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Max removal events returned (1–200, default 50)
`token`	Yes	Base token contract address (0x…)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.3.0Oct 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the POST body shape, the complete return contents, the `coverage` block-range caveat that prevents misreading empty results, and the payment mechanics (free daily IP allowance, otherwise 402, x402 USDC settlement requiring a funded MCP wallet, $0.005 fixed). These are precisely the non-obvious behaviors an agent must know before calling.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then response contents, then the honeypot contrast and coverage caveat, then pricing. Every sentence carries information, though the payment/trial sentence is dense parenthetical material that could be tightened without losing content.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a paid read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the return payload, the critical interpretation caveat (`coverage` means absence of removals is not proof of safety), and the billing/auth path including the 402 condition. Nothing essential for correct invocation or interpretation is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both `token` and `limit` are already documented with type, range, and default. The description only echoes the POST signature `{ token, limit? }` and adds no semantics beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Observed liquidity history for a Base token, from our own DEX archive,' and spells out exactly what the response contains (per-pool removal events, amount, block, tx hash, co-drained tokens). It explicitly contrasts itself with live honeypot simulation, which is a real sibling tool, so an agent can distinguish it without opening a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives a clear selection rationale: use it to learn what ALREADY happened, since a re-seeded pool can pass a live simulation today. It also warns that absence of removals is bounded by `coverage`, which is a usage caveat. It does not explicitly name `liquidity_pulls` as the alternative for a different question, so the routing guidance is clear but not fully exhaustive.

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