Tessera Analytics - Hyperliquid Market Intelligence

Live market snapshot

live_market

Read-only

What is happening right now: mark price, current hourly funding, open interest (one-sided — counted once per contract, half of the both-sides figure Hyperliquid's own UI shows, so it is directly comparable with the oi_usd column the bar tools return), 24-hour traded notional and premium for up to 25 markets, taken straight from the venue's public API and stamped with the moment it was read. Use this for 'now' questions; the bar=1d and bar=1h tools answer completed intervals only.

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": {
      "coins": "<coins>"
    },
    "name": "live_market"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`coins`	Yes	The markets to snapshot, 1..25.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`rows`	Yes
`as_of`	Yes	When the snapshot was taken, UTC.
`notes`	Yes
`source`	Yes	`hyperliquid_rest` — this is the live market, not the completed-day data.
`coin_count`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 15, 2026

changedOutput schema / $defs / LiveMarketRow / properties / oi_usd / description

Previous value: -"`open_interest * mark_px` when both are present."New value: +"`open_interest * mark_px` when both are present — one-sided, so it is\ndirectly comparable with the datasets' `oi_usd` column."

changedOutput schema / $defs / LiveMarketRow / properties / open_interest / description

Previous value: -"Open interest in base units, as reported upstream."New value: +"Open interest in base units, counted once per contract (one-sided) — the\nsame convention, and therefore the same magnitude, as the datasets'\n`open_interest` column."

AddedSep 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds real behavior: one-sided open-interest accounting (counted once per contract, half the venue UI figure), comparability with the oi_usd column from the bar tools, and a read-time timestamp stamp. That is meaningful disclosure beyond annotations, though it does not mention rate limits, error behavior for unknown coins, or partial-failure handling when some of the 25 symbols are invalid.

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?

It is front-loaded with the 'now' framing and then the field list, with no filler sentences. The long parenthetical about one-sided open interest is dense and interrupts the field enumeration, which costs a point on readability, but every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, data source, timestamping, and the accounting convention that would otherwise cause misinterpretation of the open-interest figure. Return-value details are correctly left to the output schema.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single param 'coins' already states 'The markets to snapshot, 1..25.' The description only echoes the 25-market cap, adding no new detail on symbol format (e.g., 'BTC' vs 'BTC-USD') or case sensitivity. With the schema doing the heavy lifting, baseline 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 opens with a concrete framing ('What is happening right now') and then enumerates the exact fields returned: mark price, hourly funding, open interest, 24h traded notional, and premium. It also states the scope ('up to 25 markets') and the source ('the venue's public API'), which lets an agent tell this apart from the historical/series siblings without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It gives an explicit selection rule: 'Use this for now questions; the bar=1d and bar=1h tools answer completed intervals only.' That is a direct when-to-use plus a named alternative and the condition that separates them. The only minor gap is that the alternative is described parametrically ('bar tools') rather than by sibling tool name, but the routing intent is unambiguous.

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

All Tessera Analytics - Hyperliquid Market Intelligence 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?