FortFi Treasury MCP

propose_hyperliquid_spot_to_perp

Propose moving USDC from HL Spot into core perps margin (required after MoonPay HyperCore on-ramp). Returns proposalId; human confirms via Perps Deposit to tradable balance or confirm_proposal.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "walletId": "<walletId>",
      "amountUsd": "<amountUsd>"
    },
    "name": "propose_hyperliquid_spot_to_perp"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`walletId`	Yes
`amountUsd`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does real work: it discloses that this is a proposal-only (non-executing) step, that it returns a proposalId, and that a human must confirm out-of-band. It does not state whether the USDC is held/locked during the pending proposal, what permissions are required, or what happens if a proposal is superseded.

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?

Two tight sentences: the action and its trigger come first, the return value and confirmation path second. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

For a two-parameter proposal tool with no output schema, the description covers the important pieces: action, prerequisite context, return value, and the human-confirmation step. The remaining gaps are parameter-level semantics and pending-state behavior, which are moderate rather than critical for selection.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% — both parameters are bare strings with no descriptions. The description clarifies the asset (USDC) and the source of funds, but never explains what walletId identifies (HL wallet vs. account) or that amountUsd is a decimal string representation of USD value. With no schema help, this leaves a real ambiguity for the agent.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with directionality: moving USDC from HL Spot into core perps margin. The parenthetical 'required after MoonPay HyperCore on-ramp' pins the scenario, which implicitly separates it from the generic sibling propose_hyperliquid_deposit, though it never names that sibling directly.

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?

Gives a concrete triggering condition ('required after MoonPay HyperCore on-ramp') and points to the follow-up path (Perps Deposit or confirm_proposal). It stops short of naming an alternative tool for the case where funds are already in perps margin, or saying when not to call it.

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

All FortFi Treasury MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?