whale-data

Hyperliquid whale board

hl_board

Read-onlyIdempotent

The tracked Hyperliquid whale accounts: equity, open notional, leverage, net bias, plus per-coin crowding across those wallets. Keyless returns the top rows and states how many are withheld; a developer plan returns the whole board. Descriptive market data only.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No	One line saying what the numbers cover, or why there are none. Read it before reporting any zero as a market reading.
`rows`	No	The accounts: wallet, equity, dollars open, leverage and which way they lean. Shortened on a keyless connection.
`venue`	No	Always Hyperliquid.
`tracked`	No	How many accounts are tracked.
`crowding`	No	Per-coin crowding across the tracked accounts.
`withheld`	No	How many rows a keyless connection did not receive. Zero on a developer plan.
`available`	No	False when this lane could not answer: a producer is dark, the pair sits outside this plan, or the argument named something we do not carry. Absent or true means the numbers are a real reading, not a guess.
`updated_at`	No	When the board was published.
`access_note`	No	What this connection could not return and what lifts it. Always pass this on to the user: it is the only place that information appears.
`with_open_positions`	No	How many of them currently hold something.
`tracked_notional_usd`	No	Total dollar value of everything those accounts hold open.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses that keyless access returns only top rows and reports how many are withheld, while a developer plan returns the full board. This explains tier-based limitations and result shaping, which is not visible in schema or annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core content (equity, open notional, etc.) and then adds access-tier behavior. Every phrase earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of schema information.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists (which defines the return structure), the description adequately covers what the board contains and how access limits work. It is complete for a simple read-only aggregate tool, and the 'Descriptive market data only' note sets expected limitations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is complete by default. The baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific information because none is needed. It appropriately focuses on output content and access tiers.

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?

The description clearly defines the tool's output: tracked Hyperliquid whale accounts with equity, open notional, leverage, net bias, and per-coin crowding. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., hl_whales) by focusing on a 'board' of tracked accounts and explicitly stating the keyless vs. developer plan return behavior.

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?

The description implies usage as a read-only informational board ('Descriptive market data only') and explains access-tier behavior, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over other whale-related sibling tools like whale_radar or whale_flow. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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

All whale-data tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

Many tools share the same broad purpose domains, such as market_digest vs market_overview vs market_snapshot and whale_context vs whale_profile vs whale_flow, making selection genuinely ambiguous for an agent. The long descriptions help separate them, but the sheer number of overlapping 'one-call' market and whale views still invites misselection, and whale_tape is a direct duplicate alias.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names are consistently snake_case and mostly follow a clear domain-prefix pattern: market_*, whale_*, hl_*, defi_*. Minor deviations like liquidations vs market_liquidations, liq_zones, my_access, and the deprecated whale_tape keep it from a perfect score, but the overall convention is predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

With 30 tools, the server exceeds the reasonable upper bound and feels heavy even for a broad data domain. Many tools could be consolidated—for instance, several one-call market summary tools and multiple whale-flow variants—without losing capability.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers an impressively wide range of whale and market data: news, liquidations, funding, DEX activity, Hyperliquid wallets, market scans, history, and plan access. There are minor gaps such as no general price/OHLC history or per-wallet trade history beyond swaps and fills, but agents can work around these using the existing surface.

Resources

Need Help?