HyperEVM MCP

hyperevmWithdraw

Withdraw supplied assets and accrued interest from HyperLend protocol lending pools to your wallet.

Instructions

Withdraw supplied assets and accrued interest from HyperLend protocol lending pools back to your wallet

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": "hyperevmWithdraw"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	No	Optional: Address to receive the withdrawn assets (defaults to wallet address)
`token`	Yes	Token symbol (HYPE, UBTC, UETH, USDE, USDT0, SUSDE, WSTHYPE) or contract address
`amount`	Yes	Amount to withdraw (in human readable format, or 'max' for maximum)

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?

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.

Deploy Server