Crypto Bot Audit + Market Data (x402 paid)

Hyperliquid mid price

market_hl_mid_price

Read-onlyIdempotent

The venue's own mid for one or more Hyperliquid perp coins, straight from allMids — the reference price a funding or liquidation check starts from. Costs $0.001 USDC per call. Byte-identical to GET /market/hl-mid-price?coins=BTC,ETH.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`coins`	No	comma list of up to 12 Hyperliquid coin symbols (default BTC,ETH,HYPE) (default ["BTC","ETH","HYPE"])

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ts`	No
`mids`	No
`note`	No
`stale`	No
`caveat`	No
`reason`	No
`source`	No
`matched`	No
`requested`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 25, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "caveat": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "matched": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "mids": {
+      "additionalProperties": {},
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "note": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "reason": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "requested": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "source": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "stale": {
+      "type": [
+        "boolean",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "ts": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

AddedSep 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the cost per call ($0.001 USDC) and the fact that it is byte-identical to a REST endpoint. It does not contradict annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences with no fluff. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the cost and byte-identical note are placed as secondary details. Every word earns its place.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given a simple one-parameter tool with a rich output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description is complete. It covers purpose, source, cost, and use case without missing anything an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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% for the single 'coins' parameter, including default values. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns the venue's own mid price for Hyperliquid perp coins, sourced from allMids. It explicitly positions it as the reference price for funding or liquidation checks, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like market_hl_order_book or market_hl_ticker.

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?

The description gives a concrete use case (funding/liquidation reference) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. It implies a quick read-only price lookup, which is sufficient context given the tool's simplicity.

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

All Crypto Bot Audit + Market Data (x402 paid) 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?