Get the one-time approveBuilderFee action to sign with your MAIN wallet, authorizing SwapTitan as Hyperliquid builder at a minimal 0.001% max fee. Revocable anytime.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide no behavioral hints beyond readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the action is one-time, requires signing with the MAIN wallet, and is revocable. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, confirmation steps, or whether it triggers any on-chain transactions. Given the lack of annotations, more detail would be beneficial.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the action, wallet requirement, fee, and revocability. No wasted words; structure is front-loaded with the key verb 'Get the one-time approveBuilderFee action'.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple input schema (no parameters, no output schema), the description provides enough context to understand what the tool does. It could be improved by mentioning the expected output or next steps, but it remains functional for an approval action.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters (schema coverage 100%), so the description does not need to add parameter-level details. It correctly focuses on the tool's action and context. A score of 4 is appropriate as the description is sufficient for a parameterless tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool obtains a one-time approveBuilderFee action for signing with the MAIN wallet, authorizing SwapTitan as a Hyperliquid builder at a specific fee. This is a distinct purpose from sibling tools like hl_build_order or hl_markets, which deal with order building and market data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this is a one-time approval action and mentions it's revocable, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other approval mechanisms or swap tools). The context from sibling tools suggests it's unique, but guidance on prerequisites or timing is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
