Skip to main content
Glama

get_wallet_loss_cap

Read the loss cap on a Hyperliquid wallet: the max loss in percent, whether it is armed or tripped, the balance it was set at, and (live) how much the wallet has lost or made since. Deposits and withdrawals do not count as gains or losses. Returns lossCap null when none is set.

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": {
      "walletId": "<walletId>"
    },
    "name": "get_wallet_loss_cap"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
walletIdYeshyperliquid-mainnet wallet id

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the loss figure is computed live, that deposits and withdrawals are excluded from gain/loss accounting, and that lossCap is null when unset — meaningful behavioral context beyond the tool name.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and immediately followed by what is returned. Every clause adds information; nothing is redundant.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates fully: it enumerates the returned fields, explains the live P&L semantics, the deposit/withdrawal exclusion rule, and the null case. An agent knows what it will get back and how the number is derived.

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 coverage is 100% and the single walletId parameter is fully documented in the schema as 'hyperliquid-mainnet wallet id'. The description adds no further parameter constraints or formats, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Read') and resource ('the loss cap on a Hyperliquid wallet') and immediately enumerates the returned fields (max loss percent, armed/tripped, balance, live P&L). This is clearly the read counterpart to set_wallet_loss_cap in the sibling list.

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?

The verb 'Read' implies this is the inspection tool versus the mutating set_wallet_loss_cap, so usage is inferable. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. wallet ownership), and no named alternatives.

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