SiteCheck Crypto & Finance

Hyperliquid perpetual futures snapshot for one coin: mark

finance_hyperliquid_perp_funding

Read-only

Hyperliquid perpetual futures snapshot for one coin (e.g. BTC): mark, oracle and mid price, hourly funding rate, open interest and 24h volume, from Hyperliquid's public info API. Related tools on this server, for a different need: crypto_hyperliquid_perps_depth when you need Hyperliquid L1 perpetual market snapshot for one coin: best; finance_ofr_short_term_funding_monitor when you need OFR Short-term Funding Monitor daily series from the US. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

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": {
      "coin": "<coin>"
    },
    "name": "finance_hyperliquid_perp_funding"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`coin`	Yes	Perp coin name as Hyperliquid lists it, e.g. BTC, ETH, SOL

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`coin`	No
`source`	No
`premium`	No
`midPrice`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`markPrice`	No
`maxLeverage`	No
`oraclePrice`	No
`dayVolumeUsd`	No
`openInterest`	No
`prevDayPrice`	No
`fundingRateHourly`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: a $0.002 USDC charge per successful call via x402 on Base, Solana or Arc, and no charge on failure. That cost/auth context materially affects invocation decisions. It stops short of update cadence or rate-limit details.

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?

The core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by sibling routing and pricing — a sensible priority order with little waste. The 'when you need … : best' phrasing for the depth sibling is slightly garbled and could be tightened, but nothing is redundant.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with an output schema, annotations, named return fields, sibling routing and cost disclosure, almost everything an agent needs is present. The only inferred gap is data freshness/staleness of the snapshot, which the description does not address.

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% and the single 'coin' parameter is fully documented with examples (BTC, ETH, SOL). The description's example '(e.g. BTC)' duplicates rather than extends the schema, so the 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?

Names a specific verb+resource (perpetual futures snapshot for one coin) and enumerates exactly what the snapshot contains: mark, oracle and mid price, hourly funding rate, open interest, 24h volume, sourced from Hyperliquid's public info API. It also explicitly differentiates from the closest sibling, crypto_hyperliquid_perps_depth, so an agent can pick between them without opening schemas.

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?

Gives explicit routing: use crypto_hyperliquid_perps_depth for L1 perp market depth and finance_ofr_short_term_funding_monitor for the OFR funding series. This is clear when-to-use-the-alternative guidance, though it never states exclusions or prerequisites for this tool itself (e.g. whether the coin must be a listed perp).

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

All SiteCheck Crypto & Finance 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?