Tanod MCP server

chainpeek: perpetual funding compared between Hyperliquid and dYdX, with the annualised spread

compare_funding_rates

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare perpetual funding rates between Hyperliquid and dYdX for assets on both venues, returning hourly and annualised rates plus spread rankings by absolute spread.

Instructions

chainpeek: Compare perpetual funding rates between Hyperliquid and dYdX. For five venues net of fees use rank_funding_carry. Returns each venue's hourly and annualised funding and the spread (Hyperliquid minus dYdX v4), ranked by absolute spread. Only assets on both venues are compared; the others come back in symbols_not_found, and min_volume_usd must be met on both. Cached up to 60 s. Data only, not trading advice. Bad input is a 422 (not charged). Typically 0.3-2 s. Price: USD 0.003. Free: 10 chain reads per IP per UTC day. Docs: https://tanod.dev/learn/funding-rate-spread-api.html

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Rows returned, 1-50 (default 10).
`symbols`	No	Optional: only these base assets (case-insensitive, at most 50), such as BTC. Names not listed on both venues are returned in symbols_not_found.
`min_volume_usd`	No	Skip markets whose 24 h volume on either venue is below this (USD). Default 0.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No
`cache`	No
`count`	No
`error`	No	Only on an error result: an object {code, message}, or the reason string of an x402 PaymentRequired object.
`source`	No
`spread`	No
`markets`	No
`sorted_by`	No
`annualization`	No
`markets_on_both`	No
`funding_interval`	No
`symbols_not_found`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Oct 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description goes well beyond them: 60 s cache TTL, 422 on bad input with no charge, 0.3-2 s latency, USD 0.003 price, 10 free reads per IP per UTC day, and a docs link. Unusual amount of operational context.

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?

Front-loaded with the core comparison in the first sentence, then constraints, then operational details. Dense and slightly run-on with pricing/caching/docs packed together, but each sentence carries actionable information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, annotations covering the safety profile, and 100% schema coverage, the description only needs to add constraints and operational context — which it does (venue intersection, volume gating, caching, error/pricing). Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantics beyond the schema: min_volume_usd must be satisfied on both venues (not just one) and unmatched symbols surface in symbols_not_found. Useful clarification of cross-venue filtering behavior.

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?

States a specific verb (compare) and resource (perpetual funding rates) and names both venues in scope (Hyperliquid vs dYdX v4). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling rank_funding_carry, so an agent can route between them without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the five-venue/fee-net-of-fees case to rank_funding_carry, and states the comparison constraint (only assets listed on both venues). It does not mention get_funding_rates or get_perp_markets, leaving a small gap in sibling routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server