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 hl:proven 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 developer 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 developer 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 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.
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.

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations clearly declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read idempotent call. The description adds limited behavioral context about execution methodology (screening from fills, not verifying equity) and limitations. However, it does not explain output behavior (return format, pagination) despite having an output schema.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is dense and front-loaded with a single block, but it is verbose and contains jargon ('stage-1 claim,' 'net realizedPnl') that may confuse an agent. Several sentences explain the methodology in detail that might be trimmed or simplified without losing essential meaning.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given zero parameters and a rich output schema, the description partially explains the return fields (net, gross, fees, profitableCloses) and access tiers. However, it lacks explanation of what 'keyless' vs 'developer plan' means, and does not clarify whether the output schema already documents the return values. It feels slightly overwritten but not fully complete for an agent.

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 input schema has zero parameters and is 100% covered. No parameter info is needed; the description adds context about what the tool returns (e.g., net PnL, profitableCloses) and tiered access (keyless vs developer plan). This adds meaning beyond the empty schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb-resource combination: 'Every Hyperliquid wallet that has closed a trade' and explains its scope. However, it could be clearer about what exact action the tool performs (e.g., retrieves/list fetches) and does not explicitly distinguish it from siblings like 'smart_money' or 'hl_board' beyond mentioning 'different claim.'

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description implies usage for finding profitable wallets beyond leaderboards, but it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'smart_money' or 'hl_wallet.' No explicit conditions, exclusions, or pre-requisites are stated.

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.

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