LiqFlow
REMOTE · LIQFLOW.APP
Hyperliquid liquidation levels, whale positions, liquidations, cohorts and funding. Free.
Available components
Last scanned (2 hours ago)
Scores higher than 69% of remote servers
Reachable. Last reached 5 Nov 2026.
Category Finance and Payments
How this component scores in each security and reliability category. Every signal is checked automatically against the live server, and we only credit what we can confirm. How we score → Why this is hard to score →
Endpoint Security74
- The endpoint's TLS certificate is valid, in date, and uses a strong key. View diagnostics → Pass
- No authorisation is required to call this server. Every tool declares its destructiveHint and none is destructive, so open access doesn't expose one. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Partial
- HTTPS is enforced; there's no plaintext access path. View diagnostics → Pass
- HSTS check failed: the Strict-Transport-Security header is absent. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
- DNSSEC check failed: this domain isn't protected by DNSSEC. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
Transport & Reachability100
- Verified streamable-http transport via a live MCP handshake. View diagnostics → Pass
Schema Quality & AI Usability67
- AI-judged instruction clarity (good).Pass
- Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 1944 tokens (~129/item across 15 items; 15 tools + 0 resources), over budget; trim descriptions and params. See how to fix → Fail
- Usage-examples check failed: none of the tools include examples. See how to fix → Fail
Stability & Change Management53
- Stability observed for 16 of 30 days with no destabilising changes; credit accrues until the full window elapses.Partial
Tool Coverage93
- 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
- 79% of tool parameters carry a description.Partial
Tool Safety100
- No prompt-injection markers were found in the server instructions, tool names or descriptions we captured.Pass
- We read all 15 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 16 captured unit(s) of tool text and found none that tries to manipulate the model reading it.Pass
Capabilities100
- Implements a current MCP spec version (2026-07-28).Pass
Every change we have recorded for this component, newest first. Security-relevant changes are always shown. ▲ marks a change for the better, ▼ a change for the worse; unmarked changes are neutral.
- 5 Nov 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 50 to 53. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 15 days of observed history at the previous scan, 16 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 3 Nov 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 43 to 47. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 13 days of observed history at the previous scan, 14 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 1 Nov 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 37 to 40. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 11 days of observed history at the previous scan, 12 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 30 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 30 to 33. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 9 days of observed history at the previous scan, 10 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 28 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 23 to 27. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 7 days of observed history at the previous scan, 8 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 26 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 17 to 20. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 5 days of observed history at the previous scan, 6 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 23 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 7 to 10. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 2 days of observed history at the previous scan, 3 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 21 Oct 26 +1
- Stability: unverified → 0.03 ▲ functional
Diagnostic detail from the automated scan of this channel: what the scanner observed at each step, so you can see exactly where a check passed or failed. It is informational only and never changes the trust score.
Captured 5 Nov 2026 · Probed https://liqflow.app/mcp
TLS valid
Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 .
| Subject | Issuer | Valid from | Valid until | Key | Signature | Serial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN=liqflow.app | CN=YE2,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US | 28 Sept 2026 | 27 Dec 2026 | ECDSA 256 | ECDSA-SHA384 | 6543e013a9ebbec967401563fd28b0a524b |
| SANs: *.liqflow.app, liqflow.app | ||||||
| CN=YE2,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US (CA) | CN=Root YE,O=ISRG,C=US | 3 Sept 2025 | 2 Sept 2028 | ECDSA 384 | ECDSA-SHA384 | 4df3b15dd6c0784c507cd37b58e6f115 |
| CN=Root YE,O=ISRG,C=US (CA) | CN=ISRG Root X2,O=Internet Security Research Group,C=US | 13 May 2026 | 2 Sept 2032 | ECDSA 384 | ECDSA-SHA384 | 872165fc34b6e5fba8add5b3705fb53a |
| CN=ISRG Root X2,O=Internet Security Research Group,C=US (CA) | CN=ISRG Root X1,O=Internet Security Research Group,C=US | 13 May 2026 | 2 Sept 2032 | ECDSA 384 | SHA256-RSA | 6c8f1dc727c7117f7baf853ac980f9cd |
Background: What to check on a remote MCP endpoint →
DNSSEC insecure
Validation of liqflow.app. — Not signed
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | trust_anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| app. | present | 23684 | 8 | Verified |
| liqflow.app. | absent | Unsigned (proven) parent-signed NSEC/NSEC3 proves an unsigned delegation |
Authentication No authorisation required
The endpoint answered without asking for a token. Anyone who knows the URL can reach it.
| Result | No authorisation required |
|---|---|
| HTTP status | 200 |
Background: How OAuth 2.1 works in the 2026 MCP spec →
Transports 2 probes
| Transport | URL | Outcome | Status | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| streamable-http | https://liqflow.app/mcp | Verified | 200 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://liqflow.app/mcp | HTTPS enforced | 301 | https://liqflow.app/mcp |
The tools this component advertises to a client, with an estimated token cost for each. Expand a tool to see its parameters and schema. The per-tool counts are indicative and are not scored directly; the schema's total context footprint is one signal in Schema Quality & AI Usability. A tool's description is untrusted text the model reads on every call, which is what makes this list a security surface and not just an inventory: how tool poisoning works →
cascades Liquidation cascades ~104
Past sharp moves (at least `min_move_pct` in one 4-hour step) paired with how much liquidation exposure sat in their path just before -- the evidence for whether clusters actually get run.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| coin | – | – | Only this market |
| days | integer | – | – |
| limit | integer | – | – |
| min_move_pct | number | – | Smallest 4-hour move to count |
| sort | string | – | Newest first, or most exposure first |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
cohort_positioning Cohort positioning ~107
How different kinds of traders are positioned: wallets grouped by account size (Micro under $250 up to Whale over $1M) and by all-time PnL (Highly Unprofitable to Highly Profitable), with each group's long and short notional and the share that is long. "Are whales and the profitable traders on the other side of retail?" Uses 2 API calls without a coin.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| coin | – | – | One market; omit for all markets combined |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
cohort_top_coins Cohort top coins ~268
Which coins one trader cohort is most long and most short on, ranked across every market: "What are the most profitable traders most bullish and most bearish on?" Each coin has the cohort's long and short notional, net USD, share long and wallet count, plus the cohort's overall lean across all markets to compare against. Uses 2 API calls without a side.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| cohort | string | – | By all-time PnL: Highly Profitable (over $100k) down to Highly Unprofitable (under -$100k). By account size: Whale (over $1M) down to Micro (under $250). |
| limit | integer | – | Coins per side |
| min_notional_usd | number | – | Skip coins where the cohort holds less than this, long plus short. Without a floor a ratio ranking is all tiny markets where a few wallets are 100% one way |
| rank_by | string | – | ratio: by the share of the cohort's notional that is long (conviction). net: by long minus short USD (the biggest bets, which favours BTC and ETH) |
| side | – | – | long: the coins the cohort is most bullish on; short: most bearish on. Omit for both |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
coin_history Coin history ~102
A metric's history for one market (with the price where the data has it), thinned to at most 60 points.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| coin | string | yes | Hyperliquid market symbol, e.g. BTC, ETH, HYPE, xyz:SKHX |
| days | integer | – | – |
| metric | string | – | score = liquidation-pressure score; funding = aggregate funding; depth = cross-exchange order-book imbalance; volume = cross-exchange traded volume |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
coin_snapshot Coin snapshot ~106
Everything about one market right now: live price and 24h change, its liquidation-pressure score, liquidation exposure each side and how close it sits, the nearest big cluster, its rank among all markets, and what changed since the previous snapshot. Start here for any question about one coin. Uses 2 API calls.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| coin | string | yes | Hyperliquid market symbol, e.g. BTC, ETH, HYPE, xyz:SKHX |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
funding Funding rates ~107
Perp funding rates. With a coin: the rate on each venue (Hyperliquid, Binance, Bybit, OKX, Bitget, Gate) normalised to 8 hours, plus the open-interest weighted aggregate. Without: the markets paying the most positive and most negative funding right now. Positive = longs pay shorts.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| coin | – | – | One market; omit for the most extreme rates across all |
| limit | integer | – | Markets per side when no coin is given |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
leaderboard Trader leaderboard ~51
Hyperliquid wallets ranked by all-time PnL or by 30-day volume.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| by | string | – | All-time PnL, or 30-day traded volume |
| limit | integer | – | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
liquidation_map Liquidation map ~170
Where the forced orders sit around the current price for one market, from every wallet on the node: liquidation prices (longs below = forced sells, shorts above = forced buys), resting stop-loss / take-profit trigger orders, and order-book depth, summed into price bands either side of the mark price, plus the biggest liquidation clusters. This is the "liquidation heatmap" question: where would a move run into cascading liquidations, and how much is there. Uses 2 API calls.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| bands | integer | – | Price bands per side |
| coin | string | yes | Hyperliquid market symbol, e.g. BTC, ETH, HYPE, xyz:SKHX |
| range_pct | number | – | How far either side of price to map, in % |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
liquidation_totals Liquidation totals ~126
How much was liquidated. Without a coin: every market ranked by liquidated USD over the window, long vs short. With a coin: long and short liquidations per time bucket. Windows that the node missed are listed under `gaps` -- those are missing data, not quiet periods.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| coin | – | – | One market, for a time series; omit for a ranking of markets |
| hours | number | – | – |
| interval | – | – | Bucket size for the time series; chosen from hours if omitted |
| limit | integer | – | Markets in the ranking |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
list_markets List markets ~90
Market symbols LiqFlow covers, to resolve a name ("solana") to its market symbol (SOL). `scored` markets also have scores, funding, depth and volume; the rest have node data only (positions, levels, liquidations). Uses 2 API calls.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | – | – | Filter by symbol or name, e.g. "pepe" or "bitcoin" |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
market_overview Market overview ~112
The whole market in one reading: how many perps lean bullish vs bearish on liquidation pressure, and the markets leaning hardest each way. The score compares short-liquidation exposure ABOVE price (forced buys if price rises) with long-liquidation exposure BELOW it (forced sells if it falls), weighted by distance. Negative = more fuel below, a bearish pull; positive = the reverse. Uses 2 API calls.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| top | integer | – | How many markets to list on each side |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
open_interest_ranking Open interest ranking ~45
Hyperliquid markets ranked by open interest (USD), with how many positions are open in each, from every wallet on the node.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | integer | – | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
recent_liquidations Recent liquidations ~104
Individual Hyperliquid liquidation fills, newest first, straight off the node: who was liquidated, on which market, how big, at what price. One liquidation can be several fills sharing an order id.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| coin | – | – | One market; omit for all |
| hours | number | – | – |
| limit | integer | – | – |
| min_usd | – | – | Only fills at least this large |
| side | – | – | Which side was liquidated |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
top_positions Top positions ~98
The largest open positions on Hyperliquid right now, longs and shorts, read live from the node: wallet, size, notional, entry, leverage, liquidation price and how far price is from it, unrealised PnL, and the wallet's size cohort.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| coin | – | – | One market; omit for the largest on any market |
| limit | integer | – | Per side |
| side | – | – | Omit for both |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
wallet Wallet positions ~73
One Hyperliquid wallet right now, read live from the node: account value, PnL, every open position with leverage, liquidation price and how far price is from it, and its open orders (limits, stops and take-profits).
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | string | yes | Hyperliquid wallet address, 0x... |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
How do I install the LiqFlow MCP server?
LiqFlow is a hosted endpoint at https://liqflow.app/mcp, so there is nothing to install locally. Ready-made configuration for Claude, Cursor, VS Code, Codex and 5 more is on this page, copied from each client's own documentation.
remote · liqflow.app
claude mcp add --transport http app-liqflow-liqflow 'https://liqflow.app/mcp'
What is the LiqFlow MCP server?
LiqFlow is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as app.liqflow/liqflow. Hyperliquid liquidation levels, whale positions, liquidations, cohorts and funding. Free. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://liqflow.app/mcp).
Is the LiqFlow MCP server safe to use?
LiqFlow scores 77 out of 100 on VerifyMCP. That is a record of what we were able to check automatically, not an endorsement. The category breakdown on this page shows every signal behind the number, including the ones we could not confirm.
What tools does the LiqFlow MCP server expose?
LiqFlow exposes 15 tools: market_overview, list_markets, open_interest_ranking, coin_snapshot, liquidation_map, and 10 more. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 1,663 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the LiqFlow MCP server require authentication?
No. We connected to LiqFlow without credentials and it answered, so anything it exposes is reachable by anyone who knows the address.
Is the LiqFlow MCP server still maintained?
LiqFlow is still listed as active in the MCP registry. We last reached this channel on 5 November 2026. Those dates come from our own scans of the registry and the channel itself, not from anything the publisher announced.