Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
hydromancer-mcp

hydromancer-mcp

by joshavenue
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Order book depth and slippage

hydromancer_market_depth
Read-only

Measure available USD liquidity within 0.1%–2% of a market’s price and estimate slippage for a specified order size over time.

Instructions

How much can be bought or sold near the current price. Returns USD depth on each side within 0.1% to 2% of the price for a market, plus the expected slippage for a market order of a given size over time.

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": {
      "coin": "<coin>"
    },
    "name": "hydromancer_market_depth"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
coinYesMarket name, any case: "BTC", "eth", "HYPE", "kPEPE", or a HIP-3 market such as "xyz:TSLA".
sinceNoSlippage history window. Default "24h".
orderSizeUsdNoOrder size for the slippage estimate, in USD (default 100,000).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive, open-world profile, so the description correctly spends its words elsewhere: it discloses the return shape (per-side USD depth in a fixed 0.1%–2% band, plus a slippage series over a time window). Since there is no output schema, this is genuinely load-bearing information. It does not mention data freshness, rate limits, or behavior when a market lacks an order book.

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 the framing question and backed immediately by the concrete return description. Every clause carries substance (band width, per-side, slippage, order size, time). The opening framing sentence is slightly redundant with the detail that follows, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three parameters, all fully documented in the schema, safety covered by annotations, and no output schema — so the description carries the return-value burden and does so. The remaining gap is operational: no note on whether the 0.1%–2% band is fixed versus configurable, or what happens for thin markets, which an agent would want to know before trusting a slippage number.

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 loosely ties each parameter to its role ('for a market', 'a given size', 'over time'), which corroborates the schema but adds no formats, units, or defaults beyond it. Nothing here compensates for or extends the schema's documentation.

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 names a concrete resource and measurement: USD depth on each side within a 0.1%–2% band plus expected slippage for a given order size. That is specific enough that an agent knows this is the liquidity/slippage tool, not a price or snapshot tool. It never names a sibling (e.g. hydromancer_market_snapshot) to draw the boundary explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: by describing slippage 'for a market order of a given size', it signals the pre-trade sizing/liquidity check use case. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to alternatives such as market_snapshot for plain quotes. An agent can infer the case but must do the reasoning itself.

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