HyperEVM MCP

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.2
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct area: market data (getTokenDetails), lending market parameters (hyperevmGetReserves), swapping (kittenswapSwapTokens), and user lending actions (hyperevmSupply, Withdraw, Borrow, Repay, AccountState). No overlap or ambiguity.
Naming Consistency3/5
Most tools use camelCase, but patterns vary: some prefix with 'hyperevm' or 'kittenswap', while 'getTokenDetails' lacks a prefix. The mix of verb placements (hyperevmGetReserves vs hyperevmSupply) is inconsistent, though still readable.
Tool Count5/5
With 8 tools covering token info, lending/borrowing, and swapping, the set is well-scoped for a DeFi server. No unnecessary duplication or missing core functionality.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers essential DeFi operations: market data, lending market overview, supply, withdraw, borrow, repay, account state, and swapping. Minor gaps like approval or liquidation are acceptable for typical usage.
Average 3.4/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the tool's function. It does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, or the impact of the 'detailed' parameter on output.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, concise but contains a typo ('protoco' instead of 'protocol'). It front-loads the purpose but could be slightly more structured without extra verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and simple input, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of reserves with parameters). It lacks this context, making it less useful for an agent to interpret results.
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% (one parameter 'detailed' with description). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, merely implying the tool returns market parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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's purpose: viewing all available lending markets and their current parameters in HyperLend protocol. It uses a specific verb 'view' and distinguishes from sibling tools like hyperevmSupply which perform actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like getTokenDetails or hyperevmAccountState. There are no explicit usage conditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. Mentions 'automated routing and slippage protection' but fails to disclose destructive nature (sending tokens), necessary approvals, or failure modes like insufficient liquidity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence efficiently conveys the core purpose and key features. It is front-loaded but could be restructured to include key behavioral notes without adding length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of token swaps, the description omits critical information: return values, required user approvals, transaction signing, and potential side effects. No output schema or annotations to supplement.
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 description coverage is 100%, and each parameter is well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, resulting in baseline score.
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?
Description clearly specifies the verb 'Swap', resource 'tokens', and network 'Kittenswap DEX on Hyperliquid EVM'. It is distinct from sibling tools which involve other DeFi actions or token details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it vs alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusion cases. Context is clear but lacking explicit usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states fetching from DexScreener API, implying read-only behavior, but fails to disclose potential behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or data freshness.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is concise and zero waste. However, no structural elements (e.g., bullet points) are used, though not necessary for this simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one parameter and no output schema, the description provides a partial picture of outputs (price, market data, trading metrics) but lacks details on return format, error conditions, or data coverage.
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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's description of tokenAddress.
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 action (Fetch), the resource (comprehensive token details), and the source (DexScreener API). It distinguishes from sibling tools which are DeFi actions or account state queries.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for fetching token market data, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusions. Context from sibling names helps, but the description itself lacks guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It fails to disclose important behaviors such as what happens with insufficient collateral, whether borrowed tokens are transferred immediately, or the effect on account state.
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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a lending protocol interaction and lack of output schema or annotations, the description is too sparse. It omits key context like error conditions, return values, and relationship to collateral status.
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?
All parameters are documented in the input schema, so baseline is 3. The tool description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema.
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 verb 'borrow' and the resource 'assets against supplied collateral', distinguishing it from sibling tools like hyperevmSupply and hyperevmRepay.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for borrowing with variable or stable rates, but does not specify when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor prerequisites like having supplied collateral.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions repayment and health factor improvement, but misses critical details like approval requirements, transaction costs, or that this is a write operation. The description is too brief to be fully transparent.
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, focused sentence with no extraneous information. It efficiently communicates the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and sibling tools like hyperevmBorrow and hyperevmSupply, the description lacks important context: prerequisites (must have borrowed), return behavior (no output described), and how this fits into the overall workflow. It is incomplete for guiding an AI agent.
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?
The input schema already describes all 4 parameters comprehensively (e.g., token format, amount 'max' option). The description adds no new information beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 action ('Repay borrowed debt'), the protocol ('HyperLend'), and the goal ('reduce debt burden and improve health factor'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like hyperevmBorrow (borrowing) and hyperevmSupply (supplying).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives is given. It implies usage when debt is present, but doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., must have previously borrowed) or when not to use (e.g., if health factor is already high).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states the high-level purpose, omitting critical details such as token transfer mechanics, authorization requirements (e.g., token approval), or side effects (e.g., receipt of aTokens). This lack of transparency could confuse an agent.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and purpose. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (simple parameters, no output schema), the description omits important contextual cues like prerequisites (e.g., token balance, approvals) or the expected outcome. An agent may lack sufficient information to invoke the tool correctly without protocol-specific knowledge.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters beyond the schema descriptions already present. It is adequate but not enhanced.
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 action ('Supply/lend'), the target ('HyperLend protocol lending pools'), the network ('Hyperliquid EVM'), and the dual purpose ('earn lending yield and enable borrowing capacity'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hyperevmWithdraw and hyperevmBorrow.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for supplying assets, contrasting with borrowing or withdrawing, but does not explicitly state when to use it or provide exclusion criteria. No alternatives are mentioned, though sibling names offer weak context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'withdraw' implying a state change, but lacks details on permissions, reversibility, gas costs, error conditions, or pool liquidity constraints. The mention of 'accrued interest' adds some value but is insufficient.
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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the action efficiently with no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a DeFi withdrawal, the description is incomplete. It does not mention that the user must have previously supplied assets, what the output (e.g., transaction hash) might be, or any prerequisites. With no output schema, the description should provide more context about the result.
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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (to, token, amount) with descriptions. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, providing no extra context for the parameters.
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 verb 'withdraw', the resource 'supplied assets and accrued interest from HyperLend protocol lending pools', and the destination 'back to your wallet'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like hyperevmSupply (supply), hyperevmBorrow (borrow), and hyperevmRepay (repay).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for retrieving supplied assets, but it does not explicitly state when to use it, prerequisites (e.g., must have supplied previously), or when not to use it (e.g., insufficient balance). No guidance on alternatives is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It indicates a read-only 'get' operation returning collateral, debt, and health metrics, but does not disclose if it triggers state changes, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The description is adequate but lacks depth.
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 sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and scope without extraneous words. It is front-loaded with 'Get comprehensive overview' and includes concrete elements (collateral, debt, health metrics).
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 query tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context for an agent to use it correctly. It covers the return content broadly. Minor improvement would be mentioning that userAddress defaults to the wallet address, but that is already in the schema.
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 description coverage is 100% for both parameters (detailed, userAddress), so the description does not need to add parameter details. It does not provide any parameter-specific context beyond the schema, meeting the baseline.
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 retrieves a comprehensive overview of a HyperLend position, specifying the included assets (collateral, debt, health metrics). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hyperevmSupply or hyperevmBorrow which perform specific actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this tool is for checking overall position health, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., hyperevmGetReserves for reserve-level data). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![hyperEVM-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/PlayAINetwork/hyperEVM-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/PlayAINetwork/hyperEVM-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![hyperEVM-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/PlayAINetwork/hyperEVM-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/PlayAINetwork/hyperEVM-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/PlayAINetwork/hyperEVM-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server