HyperEVM MCP

hyperevmBorrow

Borrow assets against supplied collateral from HyperLend protocol with variable or stable interest rates.

Instructions

Borrow assets against supplied collateral from HyperLend protocol with variable or stable interest rates

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": {
      "token": "<token>",
      "amount": "<amount>"
    },
    "name": "hyperevmBorrow"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`token`	Yes	Token symbol (HYPE, UBTC, UETH, USDE, USDT0, SUSDE, WSTHYPE) or contract address
`amount`	Yes	Amount to borrow (in human readable format)
`onBehalfOf`	No	Optional: Address that will receive the debt (defaults to wallet address)
`interestRateMode`	No	Interest rate mode	variable

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.2Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

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.

Deploy Server