Vike Data API

Hyperliquid Position Match

hl_position_match

Read-onlyIdempotent

Reverse-lookup a Hyperliquid open position from share-card details (symbol + side + leverage + entry price). Given the info shown on a HL trader's share card, return wallet(s) with matching open positions, ranked by entry-price proximity. Useful for 'whose share card is this?' or 'who has a 25x ETH long open at $3,200?'. Walks tight (±0.05%) -> loose (±0.5%) -> fallback (±1.0%) entry bands and requires leverage within ±0.5. Reads from the latest position snapshot (freshness-gated to the newest 15-minute window).

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": {
      "symbol": "<symbol>",
      "side": "<side>",
      "leverage": "<leverage>",
      "entry_price": "<entry_price>"
    },
    "name": "hl_position_match"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`side`	Yes	Position side
`limit`	No	Max matches to return (default 50, max 500)
`symbol`	Yes	Asset symbol (e.g. BTC, ETH, SOL)
`leverage`	Yes	Leverage from share card (e.g. 5, 10, 25); 0 finds positions with no leverage recorded
`mark_price`	No	Optional current mark price; sharpens the tie-break when multiple wallets share the same entry.
`entry_price`	Yes	Entry price from share card

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedNov 2, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / limit / default
```
Previous value: -10New value: +50
```

changedInput schema / properties / limit / description

Previous value: -"Max matches to return (default 10, max 50)"New value: +"Max matches to return (default 50, max 500)"

First observedOct 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only establish that this is a safe read; the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: a tiered matching algorithm (tight ±0.05% -> loose ±0.5% -> fallback ±1.0%), a hard leverage tolerance of ±0.5, ranking by entry-price proximity, and a data-freshness constraint (newest 15-minute snapshot window). That tells the agent exactly how matches are produced and why results may be empty.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by use cases, matching algorithm and data source in descending order of importance. No filler sentences; even the parenthetical examples carry selection signal.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does hint at the return ('wallet(s) with matching open positions, ranked by entry-price proximity'), so the agent knows the shape at a high level. It does not enumerate returned fields or say what an empty result means, a minor gap for a lookup tool of this type.

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 100%, so per-parameter docs already exist and baseline would be 3. The description goes further by explaining how entry_price and leverage are actually applied (percentage bands, ±0.5 leverage tolerance), which is matching semantics the schema does not state. It does not elaborate on limit pagination behavior beyond the schema's default/max note.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource: 'Reverse-lookup a Hyperliquid open position from share-card details'. The input tuple (symbol + side + leverage + entry price) and the ranking rule make it unmistakably distinct from sibling tools such as hl_wallet, hl_leaderboard or hl_perp_top_traders, which enumerate rather than reverse-match.

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 triggering scenarios ('whose share card is this?', 'who has a 25x ETH long open at $3,200?'), so an agent knows the intended entry point. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, which keeps it short of a 5.

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

All Vike Data API 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.