hyperd-mcp

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

hyperd.wallet.persona

Analyze a wallet's on-chain behavior to classify its persona — Trader, HODLer, MEV-bot, Whale, Smart-Money, Airdrop-Farmer, Compromised, or Inactive. Includes confidence and supporting signals.

Instructions

Classify a wallet's persona based on on-chain behavior. Returns one of: Trader, HODLer, MEV-bot, Whale, Smart-Money, Airdrop-Farmer, Compromised, Inactive — plus confidence and supporting signals. Costs $0.10 in USDC.

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": {
      "address": "<address>"
    },
    "name": "hyperd.wallet.persona"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`address`	Yes	0x EVM wallet address
`chain`	No	Chain to analyze. Default 'base'.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return type (persona, confidence, signals) and cost ($0.10). However, it does not mention rate limits, permissions, or whether it's a read-only operation. The cost disclosure adds transparency.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with verb and resource, each sentence informative. Could be slightly restructured for easier scanning, but overall efficient.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains the return value (list of persona types plus confidence and supporting signals) and mentions cost. All necessary information for an agent to invoke and interpret results is present.

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 description adds minimal extra meaning. It confirms address is EVM and chain default is 'base', which matches the schema. No additional semantic value 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 action ('Classify'), the resource ('wallet's persona'), and the output (list of personas plus confidence and signals). It distinguishes from sibling tools like hyperd.wallet.anomaly, hyperd.wallet.pnl, and hyperd.wallet.risk, which focus on other aspects.

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?

The description implies usage when behavioral classification is needed. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, the sibling context signals suggest an agent can differentiate. A minor gap is the lack of exclusions.

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