hydromancer-mcp

Top traders leaderboard

hydromancer_top_traders

Read-only

Rank Hyperliquid traders by realized profit, win rate, or volume over selected periods and filter out bots and one-off wallets to find consistent performers.

Instructions

Rank Hyperliquid traders by realized profit, win rate or volume over 1 day to all time, with filters that remove bots and one-off wallets. Use for "who are the best traders this week?", "find consistent winners on stocks (dex xyz)" or "top traders using builder X". Pair with hydromancer_wallet_overview to see what they hold now.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "hydromancer_top_traders"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	How many rows to return (default 25, max 1000).
`market`	No	Only "main" (native Hyperliquid) or a HIP-3 dex such as "xyz". Omit for all.
`offset`	No	Rows to skip, for paging.
`period`	No	Time period (default "30d").
`rankBy`	No	Ranking (default "profit").
`builder`	No	Only traders who have traded through this builder's app (0x address).
`minTrades`	No	Minimum completed trades (default 5).
`excludeBots`	No	Drop wallets that look automated (human score below 60). Default true.
`minDaysActive`	No	Minimum distinct active days (default 1).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 31, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: results are filtered by default to strip bots and one-off wallets, which silently changes row counts and would otherwise surprise an agent. It does not mention data freshness or whether the leaderboard is cached/realtime.

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?

Three sentences with the verb and ranking axes front-loaded, then example questions, then the sibling pairing hint. No filler; the quoted user intents each map to a distinct parameter and earn their space.

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?

All parameters are optional with documented defaults and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description mostly needs to convey scope and defaults-filters — which it does. With no output schema, it leaves the returned row shape (address? PnL? win rate? rank?) unstated, a small remaining gap for a leaderboard tool.

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% and every parameter already documents its default and enum values, so the description cannot add much. It only restates the ranking dimensions and the bot/one-off filtering without naming parameters, which duplicates schema content rather than extending it.

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 and resource ('Rank Hyperliquid traders') plus the three ranking metrics and the time range span, so the tool is distinguishable from wallet-level siblings like hydromancer_wallet_overview. The scope (leaderboard, not per-wallet detail) is unambiguous.

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?

Gives three concrete example intents mapped to parameters (week → period, 'stocks (dex xyz)' → market, 'builder X' → builder) and explicitly routes follow-up work to hydromancer_wallet_overview. It lacks an explicit when-not clause (e.g., 'for a single known wallet use wallet_overview instead'), which keeps it below a 5.

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

Deploy Server