List Hyperliquid vaults ranked by allocation-worthiness (Sharpe, drawdown, operator skin-in-game, concentration, fees). Vaults are deposit products. Returns verdict, risk score, CAGR, max drawdown, TVL, APR.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so description carries burden. Discloses a read operation with ranking and multiple return fields. Does not explain limit parameter behavior, pagination, or data freshness. Adequate but not thorough.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Efficient but could be more structured with separated purpose and output details.
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?
For a simple list tool with one parameter and no output schema, description covers ranking criteria and return fields. Missing limit semantics and output format, but overall adequate given low complexity.
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?
Schema has one integer parameter 'limit' without description. Schema coverage is 0%. Description does not mention 'limit', providing no added meaning. Parameters are left entirely unexplained.
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?
Description specifies verb 'List', resource 'Hyperliquid vaults', ranking criteria ('allocation-worthiness' with specific metrics), and return fields. Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools (wallet, copyable traders, PM traders).
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?
Implied usage for evaluating vault allocation decisions based on ranking criteria. No explicit when-not or alternatives, but siblings are distinct enough that context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.