Skip to main content
Glama

Trading bot/vault/agent sheet HL+Thirdfy ($0.005)

bot_sheet
Read-only

PAID $0.005. Analytics sheet for a Hyperliquid wallet/vault or Thirdfy agent. Informational only — not investment advice.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "bot_sheet"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes0x address or Thirdfy slug
api_keyNoOptional prepaid key (sk_scrapling_...) or catalog pass token (sdp_..., from pass_day/pass_month). Otherwise pay per call with x402 via _meta['x402/payment'].

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds two useful extras the annotations do not: the per-call price and an 'informational only, not investment advice' disclosure. It says nothing about rate limits, latency, or what the sheet contains.

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?

Two short sentences with the price front-loaded and the disclaimer separated. There is essentially no waste, though the wording is so terse that it omits content the agent would find useful.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of saying what an 'analytics sheet' actually contains, and it does not — no mention of metrics, sections, or response shape. Pricing and payment mechanics are adequately covered via the schema, so this is minimum viable rather than broken.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains the 0x address vs Thirdfy slug forms and the prepaid/x402 payment options. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States the resource precisely: an analytics sheet for a Hyperliquid wallet/vault or a Thirdfy agent, matching the required id forms. It is clear what the tool returns at a high level, but it never distinguishes itself from free_bot_sheet_sample or bot_history, and the verb 'analytics sheet' largely restates the title.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description gives no when-to-use conditions, no mention of the free sample or history siblings as cheaper alternatives, and no prerequisites beyond price. Only the cost ($0.005) and a disclaimer are supplied, leaving the agent to infer when paying is warranted.

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.