Skip to main content
Glama

funding_rates

[$0.005 USDC per call via x402] Perpetual futures funding rates, open interest, mark/oracle price and 24h volume for 200+ crypto perps (Hyperliquid). Filter by symbols or sort by funding/OI.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "funding_rates"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sortNofunding_desc, funding_asc, oi (default: 24h volume)
limitNo1-100 (default 20)
symbolsNoComma-separated base symbols, e.g. BTC,ETH,SOL (default: top by volume)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the meaningful behavioral facts of cost ($0.005 USDC per call via x402) and data source (Hyperliquid). It says nothing about update frequency, freshness of the 24h volume figure, or whether the call is read-only — though the read-only nature is strongly implied by a market-data tool.

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?

Two dense sentences with zero filler; the data scope leads and the filter/sort capability follows. The pricing prefix is useful but consumes the front-loaded position, slightly displacing the core purpose.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields (funding, OI, mark/oracle, volume) and the data source, which is enough to judge fit. It lacks freshness/update cadence and pagination behavior (limit max is only in the schema), a minor gap for a market-data tool.

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%, so sort values, limit range, and symbol format are already fully documented in the schema. The description only restates the filter/sort capability in general terms and adds no format or semantics beyond it, so the 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?

Names the concrete resource set (perpetual futures funding rates, open interest, mark/oracle price, 24h volume), the universe (200+ crypto perps on Hyperliquid), and the access modes (filter or sort). An agent can immediately tell this is the perp-derivatives data tool, distinct from siblings like price, ohlc, or dex_volume.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

'Filter by symbols or sort by funding/OI' hints at how to drive the tool but gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives (e.g. price for spot, ohlc for candles). Usage is implied rather than specified.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources