Skip to main content
Glama

Squeeze score

get_squeeze_score
Read-onlyIdempotent

Short squeeze score and long flush score, 0-100, for any Hyperliquid perp. Composite of Hyperliquid funding (35), whale crowding (25: the net-long share of the top 250 Hyperliquid accounts in the coin, not retail), the 24h open-interest build from our own 5-minute sampler (20) and liquidation skew from our own tape (20). One number for whether a trade is crowded and about to hurt someone. A symbol nothing lists answers 400; while the open-interest record is under 24 hours deep, or Hyperliquid or the whale snapshot is unavailable, it answers 503; both are never billed. A listed coin none of the top 250 accounts holds returns 200 with a decline naming the missing input. Costs 0.1 USDC per call (x402, USDC on Solana, Base, Polygon, Arbitrum or Arc).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
symbolNoUSDT perp symbol e.g. SOLUSDT, BTCUSDT (default SOLUSDT)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesthe get_squeeze_score payload; a real captured example is free at https://x402.ochinimus.app/api/sample/get_squeeze_score
toolYesthe tool that produced this payload

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / symbol / description
      Previous value: -"USDT perp symbol e.g. SOLUSDT"New value: +"USDT perp symbol e.g. SOLUSDT, BTCUSDT (default SOLUSDT)"
    • removedInput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
      -  "symbol"
      -]
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
      +  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
      +  "additionalProperties": false,
      +  "properties": {
      +    "data": {
      +      "additionalProperties": {},
      +      "description": "the get_squeeze_score payload; a real captured example is free at https://x402.ochinimus.app/api/sample/get_squeeze_score",
      +      "propertyNames": {
      +        "type": "string"
      +      },
      +      "type": "object"
      +    },
      +    "tool": {
      +      "const": "get_squeeze_score",
      +      "description": "the tool that produced this payload",
      +      "type": "string"
      +    }
      +  },
      +  "required": [
      +    "tool",
      +    "data"
      +  ],
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only supply the read-only/idempotent safety profile; the description adds the operationally decisive facts: 400 for an unlisted symbol, 503 while OI history is under 24h deep or a source is unavailable, 200-with-decline when no top-250 account holds the coin, no billing on failures, and a per-call cost of 0.1 USDC via x402 across five chains. That is exactly the context annotations cannot carry.

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?

A single dense paragraph, but front-loaded: definition first, then the weighted composite, then failure modes, then price. Every sentence carries information, though the parenthetical component weighting makes the middle heavier than it needs to be for tool selection.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it doesn't. It covers composition, error semantics, billing behavior, and cost — everything an agent needs to decide whether to call and to interpret a failure. Nothing material is missing.

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% for the single symbol parameter, so the schema already documents format and default (SOLUSDT). The description adds no symbol syntax, casing, or listing requirements beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies; there is a mild mismatch between the schema's 'USDT perp' example and the description's 'Hyperliquid perp' framing.

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+resource ('Short squeeze score and long flush score, 0-100, for any Hyperliquid perp') and immediately distinguishes itself from neighboring analytics tools by naming its four components: funding, whale crowding, OI build, liquidation skew. An agent can tell this apart from get_funding_extremes or get_oi_spike_scan without opening a schema.

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?

Gives a use-case framing ('One number for whether a trade is crowded and about to hurt someone'), which implies when to reach for a composite rather than a raw component. However, it never names an alternative tool or an explicit when-not condition, so routing between this and the many funding/OI/liquidation siblings is left to inference.

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.