Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
hydromancer-mcp

hydromancer-mcp

by joshavenue
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Wallet trade history (fills)

hydromancer_wallet_trades
Read-only

Retrieve a wallet's buy and sell fills within a chosen time window, with volume, realized PnL, fees, and per-coin totals for trade analysis.

Instructions

Every fill (buy/sell execution) a wallet made in a time window, newest first, with totals: volume, realized PnL, fees and a per-coin breakdown. 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. Default window: last 24h. Large orders split into many fills are merged by default.

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_trades"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
coinNo
limitNoHow many rows to return (default 100, max 2000).
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 "24h".
untilNoEnd of window. Default now.
offsetNoRows to skip, for paging.
addressYesWallet address, 0x followed by 40 hex characters.
mergeSplitOrdersNoMerge pieces of one order into a single fill (default true).

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 safety (readOnly, non-destructive, open-world), so the description's job is to add operational detail, which it does: default 24h window, newest-first ordering, default merging of split fills, and the aggregate fields returned. It does not mention pagination limits or truncation behavior for the 2000-row cap, which is the main remaining gap.

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 dense sentences front-load what is returned and follow with the format/default details that matter most for invocation. Slightly compressed, but no sentence is wasted and nothing essential is buried.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the returned totals (volume, realized PnL, fees, per-coin breakdown) and the ordering. Adequate for a read-only history tool; only depth on paging/limits and sibling differentiation is missing.

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 86%, so the schema already documents address, coin, limit, since/until and mergeSplitOrders. The description restates the since/until accepted formats and the merge default rather than adding new meaning such as interaction rules (e.g. whether since/until accept ranges wider than retention) or paging semantics with offset.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('every fill a wallet made in a time window') plus ordering and returned aggregates, which clearly separates it from a market- or price-oriented tool. It does not name the nearest sibling (hydromancer_wallet_closed_trades) or explain the fill-vs-closed-position distinction, so an agent must infer that boundary.

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?

Useful context is given ('Default window: last 24h', newest-first, merged fills), but there is no explicit when-to-use-this-instead-of guidance against hydromancer_wallet_closed_trades or hydromancer_wallet_overview. Selection between the wallet siblings is left to inference.

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