AgentFeed

Funding extremes

get_funding_extremes

Read-onlyIdempotent

Funding rate extremes across every Hyperliquid perp above a liquidity floor: the most positive and most negative funding with annualized %, 24h price move and open interest. The most crowded trades in the market — crowded shorts are squeeze candidates. Costs 0.02 USDC per call (x402, USDC on Solana, Base, Polygon, Arbitrum or Arc).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	top N each side, 1-25, default 10
`min_turnover_usd`	No	24h volume floor in USD, default 1M

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes	the get_funding_extremes payload; a real captured example is free at https://x402.ochinimus.app/api/sample/get_funding_extremes
`tool`	Yes	the tool that produced this payload

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 13, 2026
- changedInput schema / properties / min_turnover_usd / description
```
Previous value: -"liquidity floor, default 1M"New value: +"24h volume floor in USD, default 1M"
```

Changed1 schema field changedSep 25, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "additionalProperties": {},
+      "description": "the get_funding_extremes payload; a real captured example is free at https://x402.ochinimus.app/api/sample/get_funding_extremes",
+      "propertyNames": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "tool": {
+      "const": "get_funding_extremes",
+      "description": "the tool that produced this payload",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "tool",
+    "data"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real value: a per-call price of 0.02 USDC and the x402 payment rails (USDC on Solana, Base, Polygon, Arbitrum, Arc) that an agent must know before invoking. It does not mention rate limits, tiering, or fallback behavior if payment fails, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences, properly front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the trading interpretation, then the cost. Every sentence is load-bearing; the only minor slack is that the parenthetical payment-rail list is longer than strictly needed.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't explain return values, and it correctly focuses on scope, use case, and the non-obvious x402 cost. The one gap is sibling disambiguation within a very crowded funding-tool family.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (limit, min_turnover_usd) are already documented with ranges and defaults. The description restates the existence of a 'liquidity floor' and 'top N each side' but adds no format, unit, or interaction detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource+scope: the most positive and most negative funding across every Hyperliquid perp above a liquidity floor, with named output fields (annualized %, 24h move, open interest). It differentiates by scope (extremes across all perps) but never names the close siblings get_funding_radar, get_funding_pulse, get_funding_rate or get_funding_history, so an agent must infer which funding tool to pick.

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 line 'The most crowded trades in the market — crowded shorts are squeeze candidates' implies the use case (squeeze/positioning hunting) and hints at a relationship with get_squeeze_score, but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All AgentFeed 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.