search_vaultsFilter and sort current Hyperliquid vaults by name, TVL, modeled risk, drawdown, entry quality, and observed deposit status. Returns evidence, not a recommendation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| sort_by | No | relevance | |
| entry_label | No | ||
| min_tvl_usd | No | ||
| max_risk_score | No | ||
| accepts_deposits | No | ||
| max_drawdown_pct | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds the nuance 'Returns evidence, not a recommendation,' which clarifies output intent but does not disclose other behaviors like pagination limits or data freshness. Given annotations cover the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.
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?
Two sentences with zero filler. The first sentence packs the full capability set, and the second adds the critical output caveat. Information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.
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?
With 8 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description covers the main filtering dimensions but omits details on default behavior (e.g., default sort is relevance, limit is 10) and how parameters interact. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description itself could be more explicit about search semantics for an agent to call it correctly without external hints.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists the major filter dimensions (name, TVL, risk, drawdown, entry, deposit status) which map to most parameters, but does not explicitly map each one or explain defaults for sort_by and limit. It provides partial semantic value but leaves ambiguities for 8 parameters.
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 clearly states the verb (search/filter/sort), the resource (Hyperliquid vaults), and the specific attributes involved (TVL, risk, drawdown, etc.). It is distinct from vague phrasing, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like rank_vaults or compare_vaults, which limits full clarity.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The description does not mention alternatives like compare_vaults or rank_vaults, nor does it specify conditions for choosing this search over other tools. This leaves the agent to infer usage context.
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.