hyperliquid-info-mcp

get_market

Retrieve a comprehensive snapshot of a Hyperliquid perpetual market for a given coin symbol, including prices, 24h change, volume, funding rates, open interest, premium, and max leverage.

Instructions

Detailed snapshot of a single Hyperliquid perpetual market by coin symbol (e.g. 'BTC'): mark/oracle/mid price, 24h change & volume, funding (hourly + annualized), open interest, premium, and max leverage.

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": {
      "coin": "<coin>"
    },
    "name": "get_market"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`coin`	Yes	Perp symbol, e.g. BTC, ETH, SOL, HYPE

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 6, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates the read-only nature via 'snapshot' and lists the returned metrics, but it does not mention error behavior for invalid coin symbols, rate limits, or exactly how the response is structured.

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?

The description is a single, information-dense sentence with a clear subject and a colon-delimited list of included data. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no filler.

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?

For a simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately enumerates the return fields (prices, 24h change, funding, open interest, premium, max leverage). It could explicitly state the response format (e.g., a single object) or error cases, but it is largely complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, with a clear description and examples for the 'coin' parameter. The tool description repeats the example (BTC) but adds no new semantic info, so it matches the baseline for high coverage.

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?

The description clearly states the tool provides a 'detailed snapshot of a single Hyperliquid perpetual market' and enumerates the specific data fields (mark/oracle/mid price, funding, open interest, etc.). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_all_mids and get_perp_markets, which likely offer broader but shallower data.

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?

The description clearly implies use when you need deep data on one specific market by coin symbol, contrasting with list-style tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls 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.

Deploy Server