HyperEVM MCP

hyperevmRepay

Repay borrowed debt on HyperLend protocol to reduce debt burden and improve health factor.

Instructions

Repay borrowed debt to HyperLend protocol to reduce debt burden and improve health factor

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": "hyperevmRepay"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`token`	Yes	Token symbol (HYPE, UBTC, UETH, USDE, USDT0, SUSDE, WSTHYPE) or contract address
`amount`	Yes	Amount to repay (in human readable format, or 'max' for full repayment)
`onBehalfOf`	No	Optional: Address whose debt will be repaid (defaults to wallet address)
`interestRateMode`	No	Interest rate mode of the debt	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 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.

Deploy Server