Skip to main content
Glama

All builder-deployed perps

hip3_market
Read-only

Overview of every builder-deployed (HIP-3) perpetual on Hyperliquid, mostly 24/7 stock, index, commodity and FX markets: each exchange's markets, open interest and volume; the largest and most traded markets; the biggest 24h moves; funding extremes; markets near their open-interest cap; and flags. Signed. Not investment advice. Price: $0.02 USDC per call via x402 (Base or Solana).

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": "hip3_market"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful operational context the annotations lack: it is signed, it is not investment advice, and it costs $0.02 USDC per call via x402 on Base or Solana.

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 is front-loaded and the colon-delimited list efficiently conveys scope. 'Signed. Not investment advice.' are boilerplate but earn their place as behavioral disclosures rather than padding.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing what the agent gets back, and it does so thoroughly across multiple data categories. The only gap is the lack of contrast with sibling perp 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description's enumeration of returned data domains (OI, volume, top markets, 24h moves, funding extremes, cap proximity, flags) is more about outputs than inputs, but no input semantics are required.

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 (overview) and resource (every builder-deployed HIP-3 perpetual on Hyperliquid), and enumerates the included data domains. The scope word 'every' hints at market-level coverage versus the singular hip3_perp sibling, but it never names or contrasts that sibling explicitly.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance appears. With siblings like hip3_perp and perp_full available, an agent is left to infer that this is the market-wide overview from the word 'overview' and 'every' alone.

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.