Skip to main content
Glama

Verified traders (every wallet)

hl_traders
Read-onlyIdempotent

Every Hyperliquid wallet that has closed a trade, screened from primary closing fills for net-of-fees realized profit and a human trade pace, so a profitable trader outside the venue's ranked leaderboard is still found. A stage-1 claim from fills alone: equity, ROI and the market-maker volume ratio are not verified, because a closing fill carries no account value, so it is a weaker and different claim than smart_money or the proven-trader board and is never the same number. Net realizedPnl sits next to its gross and fees, and profitableCloses counts distinct closing actions, not partial fills. Keyless returns the top rows and states how many are withheld; a paid plan returns the whole board. Descriptive market data only.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteNoOne line saying what the numbers cover, or why there are none. Read it before reporting any zero as a market reading.
rowsNoThe wallets that passed both gates, ranked by net realized PnL: net realizedPnl (plus realizedPnlGross and feesUsd), closes vs closingFills, profitableCloses, winRate, coins, fillsPerDay and topCoins. Shortened on a keyless connection.
venueNoAlways Hyperliquid.
funnelNoThe screen as four shrinking counts (seen, enough closing trades, human pace, profitable), so a small final count is never mistaken for the whole population.
withheldNoHow many rows a keyless connection did not receive. Zero on a paid plan.
availableNoFalse 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_atNoWhen the scan was published. The scan runs daily and the board self-expires after 24h.
access_noteNoWhat this connection could not return and what lifts it. Always pass this on to the user: it is the only place that information appears.
window_daysNoThe window the scan aimed to cover, in days.
wallets_seenNoHow many distinct wallets closed a trade in the window.
scan_completeNoTrue when the whole requested block range was read; false when the scan truncated (still honest, just a shorter window).
reconciliationNoFor wallets also on the proven-trader board, both numbers side by side with comparable:false. NOT like-for-like: a realized-closes figure over this window vs the venue leaderboard figure.
effective_window_daysNoThe window actually covered. Below window_days means the scan was rate-limited by the portal and the pace figures cover a shorter span.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / properties / reconciliation / description
      Previous value: -"For wallets also on hl:proven, both numbers side by side with comparable:false. NOT like-for-like: a realized-closes figure over this window vs the venue leaderboard figure."New value: +"For wallets also on the proven-trader board, both numbers side by side with comparable:false. NOT like-for-like: a realized-closes figure over this window vs the venue leaderboard figure."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / properties / withheld / description
      Previous value: -"How many rows a keyless connection did not receive. Zero on a developer plan."New value: +"How many rows a keyless connection did not receive. Zero on a paid plan."
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description discloses significant behavioral traits: only closing fills are used, equity/ROI/MM ratio are deliberately not verified, net PnL is shown beside gross and fees, profitableCloses counts distinct actions not partial fills, and keyless access returns truncated rows with a withheld count. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is dense and front-loaded with the core purpose, then moves through caveats, field semantics, and access tiers. It is somewhat long and the first sentence packs many concepts, but every sentence contributes necessary distinction from sibling trader tools.

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 no-parameter read-only dataset with an output schema, the description is complete: it explains data provenance, what is and isn't verified, how the data differs from sibling tools, what fields mean, and what access tiers receive. Nothing critical is missing.

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 the 0-param baseline of 4 applies. The description goes further by clarifying output field semantics such as net realizedPnl and profitableCloses, which is useful even though it is not parameter documentation.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: returning Hyperliquid wallets with closed trades that meet realized-profit and human-pacing screens, so profitable traders outside ranked boards are captured. It also explicitly distinguishes the claim from smart_money and the proven-trader board, helping an agent differentiate at a glance.

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?

It gives clear context: use this when you need a broader set of verified traders based on closing fills rather than ranked leaderboards, and it warns that this is a weaker, different claim than smart_money or the proven-trader board. It does not provide an explicit 'when not to use' list, but the alternatives are named and the distinction is sharp.

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