Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
hydromancer-mcp

hydromancer-mcp

by joshavenue
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Wallet closed trades (open-to-close round trips)

hydromancer_wallet_closed_trades
Read-only

Retrieves a wallet's completed trades for a chosen window, with entry, exit, PnL, fees, funding and hold time, enabling win rate and best-coin analysis.

Instructions

Completed trades for a wallet: each row is a full position from open to close with entry, exit, size, gross and net PnL, fees, funding and how long it was held. The summary covers all trades returned for the window (up to 500); rows are newest first. Best tool for judging trading skill ("what is this wallet's win rate and best coin?"). Default window: last 30 days. since/until accept Relative ("30m", "6h", "24h", "7d"), a date ("2026-10-01"), a date-time ("2026-10-01T12:00:00Z"), "now", or Unix ms.

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": "hydromancer_wallet_closed_trades"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
coinNo
limitNoHow many rows to return (default 100, max 500).
sinceNoStart of window. Relative ("30m", "6h", "24h", "7d"), a date ("2026-10-01"), a date-time ("2026-10-01T12:00:00Z"), "now", or Unix ms. Default "30d".
untilNoEnd of window. Default now.
addressYesWallet address, 0x followed by 40 hex characters.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
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, and the description adds real context: rows are newest first, the summary spans all trades in the window, and there is a hard 500-row cap that affects how the summary should be interpreted. It stops short of saying whether the summary is computed on the truncated set only or on the full window beyond the cap.

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 what a row is, then capability framing, then window/defaults. Slightly redundant because the date-format enumeration duplicates the schema's since description nearly verbatim.

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 carries the return-shape burden and does it: it enumerates row fields, ordering, the summary concept, and the caps/defaults. Only the truncation-versus-summary interaction and the coin-filter purpose remain unspecified.

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 80% and the description mostly restates what the schema already documents for since/until (relative, date, date-time, 'now', Unix ms) and the default 30-day window. The coin filter and limit semantics are left to the schema, so the description adds little new parameter meaning.

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 resource (completed open-to-close round trips for a wallet) with the exact row contents (entry, exit, size, gross/net PnL, fees, funding, hold duration), and explicitly positions itself as the skill-evaluation tool versus other wallet tools.

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?

"Best tool for judging trading skill ("what is this wallet's win rate and best coin?")" gives clear usage context and a concrete intent-to-tool mapping. It does not explicitly name the sibling it replaces (e.g. hydromancer_wallet_trades for open positions), so the exclusion is implied rather than stated.

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