FortFi Treasury MCP

propose_hyperliquid_withdraw

Propose moving Hyperliquid perp USDC to the owner's own HyperEVM wallet (same address; perp to HL Spot, then sendAsset to the USDC system address). Funds cannot go to any other recipient. Returns proposalId; human confirms with passkey via Perps Withdraw to HyperEVM or confirm_proposal.

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>",
      "amountUsd": "<amountUsd>"
    },
    "name": "propose_hyperliquid_withdraw"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`walletId`	Yes
`amountUsd`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 3, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does well: it discloses the fixed recipient, the multi-step routing (perp to HL Spot, then sendAsset to the USDC system address), that a human passkey confirmation is required, and that the call returns a proposalId rather than executing. It does not mention permissions, amount limits, or what happens if the proposal expires.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and destination, with parenthetical routing detail that earns its place. Slightly packed but no filler.

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 a low-complexity, two-parameter proposal tool with no output schema, the description covers destination constraints, routing, confirmation flow, and return value. The gap is parameter-level detail, particularly amount formatting, which matters for a financial transfer.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% for both parameters, so the description must compensate and largely doesn't: walletId and amountUsd are never explained. The string type of amountUsd (format, decimals, whether it is USD notional) is left ambiguous, and the link between walletId and 'the owner's own HyperEVM wallet' is only implied.

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 ('Propose moving') plus the exact resource and source/destination ('Hyperliquid perp USDC to the owner's own HyperEVM wallet'), and even names the internal routing path. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as propose_hyperliquid_send_asset or propose_hyperliquid_perp_close.

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 constrains usage ('Funds cannot go to any other recipient') and names the follow-up confirmation path (Perps Withdraw to HyperEVM or confirm_proposal). What's missing is an explicit contrast with siblings that also move Hyperliquid funds, leaving the agent to infer which tool handles which flow.

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?