Hyperliquid

Hyperliquid Spot Meta

hyperliquid_spot_meta

Read-onlyIdempotent

Spot market metadata from Hyperliquid's public info API ({"type":"spotMeta"}) — every spot trading pair Hyperliquid lists, each with its pair name (e.g. "PURR/USDC"), pair index, the two token ids it is composed of, and whether it is the canonical listing for that token. Hyperliquid names most non-canonical spot pairs generically ("@1", "@2", ...) because the human-readable name belongs to the canonical pair; this tool returns Hyperliquid's raw naming as-is. Use the index from here as the coin argument to hyperliquid_l2_book/hyperliquid_candles for a spot pair, in the form "@" (Hyperliquid's own convention for spot coin ids distinct from perp symbols).

Example tool call

This call uses example arguments supplied in the tool’s input schema.

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

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note`	No
`as_of`	No
`count`	No
`pairs`	No
`source`	No
`tokens`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: results are Hyperliquid's raw naming, and non-canonical pairs appear as "@1", "@2", which prevents an agent from misreading the output.

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?

Front-loaded with the source API call and the payload contents, then the naming caveat, then the downstream usage rule. Dense but every sentence carries information; the explanation of why names are generic could be trimmed slightly but is not wasted.

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?

For a no-param read tool with annotations and an output schema, this is complete: it names the upstream API call, the fields returned, the naming quirk that would otherwise confuse an agent, and how to chain the `index` into the book/candles tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description spends its words on the returned fields and the `coin`/"@<index>" convention rather than inventing parameter guidance, which is the right allocation.

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?

States a specific verb (returns/fetches) and resource (spot market metadata / every listed spot pair) and enumerates the payload fields: pair name, index, token ids, canonical flag. The 'spot' scoping and the naming caveat make it clearly distinct from the sibling hyperliquid_perp_meta.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent how to consume the output: use `index` as the `coin` argument to hyperliquid_l2_book/hyperliquid_candles in the form "@<index>", naming the downstream tools. It stops short of saying when NOT to use it (e.g., use hyperliquid_perp_meta for perp symbols), so a 4 rather than a 5.

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

All Hyperliquid 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.