whale-data

Hyperliquid named whale fills

hl_whales

Read-onlyIdempotent

Recent whale-sized Hyperliquid fills WITH THE WALLET ADDRESS attached. Hyperliquid is the one venue whose public feed names the account on both sides of a fill, so every row here is followable to a live book (see hl_wallet). Keyless. Descriptive market data only.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`coin`	No	Filter to one coin, for example PEPE. Matched against the parsed symbol as well as the raw market name, so the 1000-unit markets (kPEPE, kSHIB, kBONK) are found under PEPE, SHIB and BONK. One symbol, not a list. Omit for every coin.
`pair`	No	Alias for coin.
`limit`	No	Max fills returned. Defaults to 50, hard ceiling 200 for everyone and no plan raises it.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`coin`	No	The coin filter applied, or null for every coin.
`note`	No	One line saying what the numbers cover, or why there are none. Read it before reporting any zero as a market reading.
`count`	No	How many rows this reply carries.
`venue`	No	Always Hyperliquid.
`capped`	No	Present only when an argument was cut down to a ceiling. Absent means nothing was clamped, so a smaller number than you asked for is the data and not a limit.
`trades`	No	The fills, each carrying the wallet on both sides, the coin, the direction, the size and the time. Pass a wallet to hl_wallet for that account live positions.
`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.
`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.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds key context: it is 'Keyless. Descriptive market data only,' and it explains the unique trait that both sides of a fill are named, enabling followability. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second explains the unique value and points to hl_wallet, and the final fragments state keyless/descriptive. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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 an optional-filter read-only list tool, the description is complete: it specifies the data returned, the unique data source, the access requirement (keyless), and provides a pointer to a related tool. Since an output schema exists, return-value details don't need to be in the description.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions, including coin's handling of k-prefixed markets and limit's default/ceiling. The description itself adds no extra parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states that the tool returns 'recent whale-sized Hyperliquid fills' with the unique feature that 'wallet address attached' to each fill. It distinguishes this from siblings by noting Hyperliquid's public feed names both sides, making fills followable, and explicitly references hl_wallet. The purpose is specific and well differentiated.

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?

The description gives clear context: it is keyless and provides descriptive market data, and it points to hl_wallet for following a live book. It explains that this is the venue for wallet-attached fills, which indicates when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it versus other whale-related siblings.

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?