Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
flowscan-mcp

flowscan-mcp

by joshavenue
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Address extras: approved builders, borrow/lend, rate limit, TWAP fills

flowscan_address_extras
Read-only

Fetch compact address widgets for a Hyperliquid wallet: approved builders, borrow/lend health, rate-limit usage, or TWAP slice fills.

Instructions

Smaller address-page widgets. kind: 'approvedBuilders' (builder codes the user approved with max fee), 'borrowLend' (HyperCore native borrow/lend state per token, health and health factor), 'rateLimit' (API request allowance vs cumulative volume), 'twapSliceFills' (fills generated by the user's TWAP orders).

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>",
      "kind": "<kind>"
    },
    "name": "flowscan_address_extras"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindYesWhich widget to return.
limitNoMax list items (default per tool).
fieldsNoPaths to keep, relative to `data` (list tools: each row); misses go to _fieldsNotFound.
offsetNoList items to skip.
addressYesAccount address (0x + 40 hex).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by explaining what each kind returns (fee caps, health factor, request allowance, TWAP fills), but says nothing about defaults for limit/offset, pagination behavior, or rate-limit implications of the rateLimit kind.

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 kind list and each value's meaning in a single dense sentence, with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a four-mode tool, though the opening 'Smaller address-page widgets' is slightly vague framing rather than an earned statement.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description must carry the return-shape burden, and it does by naming what each of the four kinds returns. It is nearly complete, missing only pagination/default behavior for limit/offset on the list-style kinds.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does add meaning beyond the schema's terse 'Which widget to return' by defining each enum value's payload, but contributes nothing for limit, offset, fields, or address beyond what the schema already documents.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies the resource ('smaller address-page widgets') and enumerates the four exact kinds with what each returns, so an agent knows precisely what data comes back. However, it uses no verb (list/get/return) and never differentiates this multi-widget tool from the many sibling address tools (flowscan_address_summary, flowscan_address_fills, flowscan_address_staking), so routing among them is left to inference.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. 'Smaller address-page widgets' weakly implies a secondary/complementary role versus the address summary tools, but the description never states that the four kinds here are the ones not covered elsewhere, nor names an alternative for any of them.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools