Skip to main content
Glama

VaultVision Hyperliquid Vault Research

Fetch VaultVision record

fetch
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch one VaultVision search result by its vault: or page: identifier and return current structured evidence with a canonical URL.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context beyond this: the result is 'current structured evidence' and includes a 'canonical URL', and the id uses a 'vault: or page:' prefix. 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

One sentence delivers the action, target, identifier semantics, and return value without redundancy or filler. All information is relevant and front-loaded.

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 simple read-only, one-parameter fetch tool with an output schema and strong readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description is complete enough. It tells the agent what to pass, what to expect back, and the general nature of the result.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning to the lone 'id' parameter. It does so by specifying that the id is a 'vault: or page: identifier', which is important for constructing a valid call. It stops short of giving exact example formats, so it is not a perfect 5.

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 clearly identifies the action ('Fetch'), the resource ('one VaultVision search result'), and the identifier form ('vault: or page: identifier'). It distinguishes itself from get_vault by explicitly saying 'search result', though it does not name the 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?

The description implies a clear use case: use this tool when you already have a vault: or page: identifier and want the current structured evidence. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like search, but the condition is clear enough.

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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target distinct actions and resources, but search_vaults and rank_vaults both return ordered vault lists, and fetch and get_vault can retrieve similar single-record data. The descriptions provide enough context to disambiguate in most cases.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names generally follow a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern (compare_vaults, get_vault, rank_vaults). Standalone verbs like fetch and search are minor deviations but remain readable and consistent in style.

Tool Count5/5

Nine tools is well-scoped for a research-focused server. Each tool covers a distinct investigation workflow without redundant entries or excessive surface area.

Completeness4/5

The server covers discovery, retrieval, comparison, ranking, risk explanation, alerts, and HLP-specific metrics. Minor gaps exist, such as no historical/time-series tool, but core research workflows are fully supported.