SiteCheck Agent Intel & Dev

Finds the top-ROI accounts on Hyperliquid's public perp

agent_intel_smart_money_inflow_tracker

Read-only

Finds the top-ROI accounts on Hyperliquid's public perp leaderboard (week, month or all-time window, with a minimum account size) and reads their live open positions from Hyperliquid's public info API, then sums net long/short USD exposure per coin. Shows where the best-performing Hyperliquid traders are positioned now. Hyperliquid perps only, not spot wallets on other chains; not investment advice. Related tools on this server, for a different need: agent_intel_smart_contract_linter_audit when you need Heuristic Solidity linter for a snippet or file: unchecked. Price: $0.004 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "agent_intel_smart_money_inflow_tracker"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`top`	No	How many top-ROI accounts to read, 3 to 25 (default 15)
`coin`	No	Optional coin symbol to focus on, e.g. BTC
`window`	No	Ranking window: day, week, month or allTime (default month)
`minAccountUsd`	No	Minimum account value in USD for an account to count, 10000 to 100000000 (default 100000)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note`	No
`coins`	No
`source`	No
`window`	No
`wallets`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`walletsRead`	No
`minAccountUsd`	No
`leaderboardAccounts`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly=true and openWorld=true, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: the data source (public info API), the paid x402 model at $0.004 USDC per successful call across Base/Solana/Arc, and that failed calls are not charged. That payment/auth detail is exactly what an agent needs before invoking. Rate limits and latency behavior are still unstated, which keeps it below 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

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

The first two sentences are front-loaded and earn their place. The trailing 'related tools' sentence about a Solidity linter is irrelevant noise that costs attention and could mislead, though the pricing sentence is justified boilerplate.

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?

With an output schema present, return values needn't be explained, and the description covers data source, scope, windows, and payment. What's missing is failure/latency behavior and whether results are a point-in-time snapshot, but for a four-optional-parameter read tool this is close to complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the description only restates the window and minimum-size concepts the schema already defines. It also says 'week, month or all-time' while the schema's window parameter also allows 'day', a small inconsistency that adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 names a concrete verb chain and resource: it finds top-ROI accounts on Hyperliquid's public perp leaderboard, reads their live open positions from the public info API, and sums net long/short USD exposure per coin. An agent can tell exactly what comes back (per-coin net exposure of top performers) 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 Guidelines3/5

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

Scope exclusions are stated (Hyperliquid perps only, not spot wallets on other chains, not investment advice), which is useful. However there is no guidance for choosing between this and plausible siblings like wallet_pnl_performance_audit or whale_transaction_monitor, and the single 'related tool' pointer is to a Solidity linter, which does not help routing at all.

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

All SiteCheck Agent Intel & Dev tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?