Use this when the user asks to set or update take-profit / stop-loss on an open Hyperliquid position. Replaces any existing TP/SL triggers for that coin.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | Coin symbol of the open position, e.g. BTC | |
| stop_loss | No | New stop-loss trigger price | |
| take_profit | No | New take-profit trigger price |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, safe=false, destructive=false), lowering the burden on the description. It adds genuinely useful behavioral context: 'Replaces any existing TP/SL triggers for that coin' warns that prior triggers are overwritten rather than merged. A residual ambiguity about whether passing one price also wipes the other trigger keeps this from a 5.
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 front-loaded sentences with zero filler: the routing instruction comes first, the behavioral warning second. Every clause earns its place.
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?
Adequate for a low-complexity tool: 3 flat params, full schema coverage, and annotations carrying the safety profile. Gaps remain that could mislead an agent — behavior when no open position exists for the symbol, whether this places a live exchange mutation, and the precise scope of trigger replacement.
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% — all three params (symbol, stop_loss, take_profit) are described with types and meanings, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no param-specific detail beyond the overwrite caveat, which the schema already phrases as 'New ... trigger price'.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'set or update take-profit / stop-loss on an open Hyperliquid position', which clearly identifies the operation and its target. It does not explicitly name sibling tools for contrast, but the 'open position' scope and TP/SL domain cleanly separate it from place_order, cancel_order, and close_position.
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?
'Use this when the user asks to set or update take-profit / stop-loss' provides an explicit trigger condition framed in user intent, and the 'open position' clause implicitly excludes entries and informational lookups. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., 'use place_order for new entries') or stating exclusions, so routing is clear but not exhaustive.
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.