FortFi Treasury MCP

propose_hyperliquid_spot_order

Propose a Hyperliquid spot buy or sell on the same Hyperliquid account as perps. Buys spend the quote token (usually USDC), sells sell coins you hold. Give size (coins) or sizeUsd (dollars). size "all" sells everything free. Market orders cross the book by at most 1% and fill now or cancel. Minimum $10. Runs spot policy (no leverage, max trade size) and the wallet loss cap on buys. API keys cannot buy spot on an account a strategy runs (the cash would leave the perps account the strategy trades from); sells still work. Spot symbols: prefer the pair form (HYPE/USDC) or the wrapped name (UBTC, UETH); BTC maps to UBTC. Confirm with confirm_proposal. The key needs the propose_hyperliquid_spot_order grant.

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>",
      "symbol": "<symbol>",
      "side": "<side>"
    },
    "name": "propose_hyperliquid_spot_order"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`side`	Yes
`size`	No	Coin amount, or "all" to sell everything free
`symbol`	Yes	HYPE, HYPE/USDC, @107, or a perp name like BTC (maps to UBTC/USDC)
`sizeUsd`	No	Dollar amount (alternative to size)
`walletId`	Yes
`orderType`	No	Default market
`limitPrice`	No	Required for limit orders, in the quote token
`timeInForce`	No	Limit only. Gtc stay open, Alo add to book only, Ioc fill now or cancel

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does so well: market orders cross the book by at most 1% and fill-or-cancel, spot policy enforces no leverage and a max trade size, the wallet loss cap applies to buys, and the API-key buy restriction is disclosed with its rationale. It also discloses the required grant and the confirm_proposal workflow, which are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs before proposing a trade.

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?

Telegraphic sentences pack a lot of information and the critical constraints (market crossing cap, minimum size, account restriction) are front-loaded. It is long but nearly every clause carries a distinct rule; slightly better grouping of the order-type and symbol guidance would improve scanability.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers policy enforcement, permissions, confirmation flow, and symbol conventions thoroughly. It does not explain what the proposal object contains or how limit/TIF combinations behave, which would round it out.

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 75%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds real meaning by tying size/sizeUsd to the trade direction ('Buys spend the quote token (usually USDC), sells sell coins you hold') and by explaining the symbol form preference (pair form or wrapped name UBTC/UETH). It leaves orderType, limitPrice, and timeInForce semantics entirely to the schema, which is the main gap.

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 and resource ('Propose a Hyperliquid spot buy or sell on the same Hyperliquid account as perps'), and the 'same account as perps' phrasing plus 'spot' immediately distinguishes it from the perp and spot-to-perp siblings. An agent can select it without opening the schema.

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?

Gives concrete use conditions: buy vs sell mechanics, give size or sizeUsd, minimum $10, and 'Confirm with confirm_proposal' which names the required follow-up. It also excludes a case (API keys cannot buy spot on a strategy account; sells still work). It falls short of naming the explicit alternative for perps (propose_hyperliquid_perp_open) or when to prefer spot over spot_to_perp.

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?