Use this when the user asks the current price of a specific coin on Hyperliquid (mark price, 24h change, volume, funding).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | Hyperliquid perp coin symbol, e.g. BTC, ETH, xyz:TSLA (not BTCUSDT) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds expected data fields but does not disclose response format, error behavior, or symbol validation beyond what the schema provides.
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 one tightly scoped sentence that front-loads the usage trigger and lists the relevant outputs. No unnecessary words are present.
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, single-parameter read-only tool, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns and when to use it. It does not specify output formatting, but that is a minor gap given the low complexity and clear annotations.
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 coverage is 100% and the only parameter, symbol, is well described with examples and an exclusion. The description adds little beyond the schema, which is acceptable given full coverage.
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 identifies the tool as retrieving the current price of a specific coin on Hyperliquid and lists the included data points (mark price, 24h change, volume, funding). It distinguishes well from siblings like get_candles or get_markets, though it does not explicitly name them.
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 gives an explicit trigger condition: use when the user asks for the current price of a specific coin. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for basic routing.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource or action, but get_markets and get_price overlap in the data they return (price, 24h change, volume, funding), differing mainly by all-markets vs single-coin scope. The descriptions are explicit enough that an agent should rarely misselect, though the boundary is slightly blurry.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: get_ for reads, plus clear action verbs like place_, preview_, cancel_, close_, and set_. There is no mixing of styles or vague generic verbs.
13 tools is well within the ideal range for a trading-focused server. Each tool covers a distinct part of the workflow without feeling bloated or redundant.
The tool surface covers the full trading lifecycle: market data, account/position/order/trade reads, order preview and placement, cancellation, position closing, and TP/SL management. No obvious dead-ends or missing core operations for the stated Hyperliquid perp trading purpose.