Open interest for a coin (with USD notional) or the top perps by open interest across Hyperliquid. Send { coin } or { limit }. Positioning & liquidity depth for derivatives agents. [x402 paid tool — price $0.005; POST /api/perps/oi]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| coin | No | Perp symbol; omit to list top markets by OI | |
| limit | No | Max markets when listing, default 15 (max 50) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions it is a paid tool ($0.005) and uses a POST endpoint, which adds transparency. However, it does not describe potential side effects, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if both coin and limit are provided. The behavioral disclosure is partial.
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 three sentences, each with a distinct purpose: stating function, usage hint, and context/pricing. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no unnecessary words. Very efficient.
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?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide information about return format, pagination, error cases, or examples. It omits these details, leaving the agent potentially uncertain about the response and edge cases. For a paid tool, this is insufficient.
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?
The schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds value by hinting at mutual exclusivity ('Send { coin } or { limit }') and providing context about USD notional for coin. This clarifies usage beyond the schema alone.
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 that the tool retrieves open interest for a specific coin (with USD notional) or lists top perps by OI. It uses a specific verb and resource context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling perp tools like perps_funding or perps_markets, though the domain is clear.
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 implies usage by saying 'Send { coin } or { limit }', but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. The context of 'Positioning & liquidity depth for derivatives agents' hints at use case but lacks direct comparative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools are organized by domain prefix (e.g., 'crypto_', 'rh_', 'snipe_'), which helps distinguish between areas. Within each domain, they serve distinct purposes, though some overlap between domains exists (e.g., price data appears in multiple groups). Overall, an agent can navigate effectively.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with a domain prefix and a verb_noun combination (e.g., 'compliance_risk', 'rh_stock', 'snipe_honeypot'). This makes the API predictable and easy to explore.
With 159 tools, the server is extremely large. While the broad scope of web3 and utility functions justifies many tools, the count is significantly above the typical range for a coherent toolkit, potentially overwhelming agents and increasing selection error.
The toolkit covers a wide range of web3 operations: crypto, DeFi, compliance, safety, scheduling, memory, etc. There are no obvious major gaps for its intended purpose, though some niche areas might be missing.