Skip to main content
Glama

get_hyperliquid_outcome_market

One HIP-4 outcome market. id is the numeric outcome id. Optional walletId reads that Hyperliquid account's share balance.

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": "get_hyperliquid_outcome_market"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesOutcome id, e.g. 9802
walletIdNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses very little. It does explain that walletId reads the Hyperliquid account's share balance (a useful side-effect disclosure), but says nothing about whether this is read-only, what fields the market record contains, or how errors surface for an unknown id.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the identifier semantics are front-loaded. The first sentence is a fragment rather than a clear action statement, but nothing is redundant.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should describe the returned market record and the optional balance field it enables. Instead it stops at a one-line identification, leaving an agent unsure what it gets back beyond 'a market'.

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 only 50% (id is documented, walletId is not), but the description compensates: it clarifies id is the numeric outcome id and that walletId triggers reading that account's share balance on that market. This adds meaning beyond the bare string types in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Says 'One HIP-4 outcome market', which implies a single-market lookup versus the sibling list_hyperliquid_outcome_markets, but never uses a verb like 'retrieve' or 'get details of' and never names the sibling. An agent can infer the purpose but must guess at what 'One ... market' actually returns.

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?

No guidance on when to call this instead of list_hyperliquid_outcome_markets, get_hyperliquid_market, or the ranking/screening siblings. The only usage hint is that walletId optionally attaches a balance read, with no prerequisites or exclusions stated.

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.

Resources