FortFi Treasury MCP

get_hyperliquid_cross_section

Rank a Hyperliquid perp universe by trailing return in one call, for a dollar-neutral long/short book. Returns dex, assetClass, trailing returns, realized vol, funding, rank, percentile, and long/short/hold buckets. Default scope=core (validated trend desk); pass scope=all for HIP-3 cross-asset books. Read-only; never creates proposals.

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": "get_hyperliquid_cross_section"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`dex`	No	Filter dex ids. Comma-separated string or array.
`band`	No	Hysteresis band, default 1.0. A held name stays eligible while inside the top legsPerSide*(1+band); surfaced as hold_long / hold_short.
`limit`	No	Max symbols ranked by volume, default 60
`scope`	No	Default core
`assetClass`	No	Filter asset classes. Comma-separated string or array.
`legsPerSide`	No	Legs per side, default 6
`lookbackDays`	No	Trailing return windows in days. FIRST entry is the ranking signal. Default [14,7,30].
`includeAllDesks`	No	When true, same as scope=all
`minDayVolumeUsd`	No	Liquidity floor, default 2000000

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares 'Read-only; never creates proposals' and enumerates the returned fields (rank, percentile, long/short/hold buckets), which tells the agent what it will get back. It stops short of stating cost/rate-limit behavior or result-size characteristics, so not quite a 5.

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 purpose and ranking signal are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the return-field list, though long, is information-dense rather than filler. Three sentences with no redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

For a 9-parameter tool with no output schema, listing the returned fields and explaining scope defaults covers a lot. What is missing is any statement of how a 'cross-section' ranking differs from single-market siblings, and no sense of output volume or ordering guarantees, leaving a meaningful gap for an agent choosing between raking 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema's bare 'Default core' by explaining that core is the validated trend desk and all is for HIP-3 cross-asset books. The hysteresis/hold-bucket behavior of `band` is already in the schema, so no additional credit there.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Rank a Hyperliquid perp universe by trailing return') plus the intended use case, a dollar-neutral long/short book. It is clear what the tool produces, but it never distinguishes itself from sibling rankers like rank_hyperliquid_markets or screen_hyperliquid_markets, so an agent cannot fully disambiguate from the name alone.

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?

Usage is implied by the 'dollar-neutral long/short book' framing and by the scope guidance ('default core (validated trend desk); pass scope=all for HIP-3 cross-asset books'). However there is no explicit when-to-use versus rank_hyperliquid_markets or screen_hyperliquid_markets, which is the most likely selection ambiguity for an agent.

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

All FortFi Treasury MCP 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?