get_hlp_metricsReturn the current VaultVision record for Hyperliquidity Provider (HLP), including timestamped TVL, performance, drawdown, risk, and deposit context when available.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the operation safe (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the description only needs to add context. It adds 'current' record semantics and the 'when available' qualifier on deposit context, which informs the agent that some fields may be absent. 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence that states the action first and then lists the relevant metric categories compactly. It uses the qualifier 'when available' to avoid overpromising, with no filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, this description is complete: it identifies the subject, the record type, the included metrics, and the optionality of deposit context. The agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Per the 0-parameter baseline, a 4 is appropriate; the description correctly focuses on the returned content rather than inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Return the current VaultVision record for Hyperliquidity Provider (HLP)') and enumerates the metric groups included (TVL, performance, drawdown, risk, deposit context). This clearly distinguishes it from generic siblings like get_vault and search_vaults by naming the exact HLP subject.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The scope is unmistakable: this tool is for HLP metrics, not general vault data, so the description communicates clear context for selection. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusions, but the specific resource makes the use case obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
Nine tools is well-scoped for a research-focused server. Each tool covers a distinct investigation workflow without redundant entries or excessive surface area.
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.