Hyperliquid MCP Updated
Related Servers
Alternatives to Hyperliquid MCP Updated
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol server providing comprehensive tools to access real-time market data, trading information, user positions, and analytics for the Hyperliquid perpetual futures exchange.5MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceA read-only MCP server for Hyperliquid that provides public market data (prices, order books, funding) and any wallet's positions, orders, and fills via MCP tools, without requiring a private key.MIT
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceA read-only MCP server for querying Hyperliquid perp markets, funding rates, order books, candles, and account positions/fills/funding for any address, without needing API keys or wallets.830 npm1MIT
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceProvides AI agents read-only, keyless access to Hyperliquid market data, funding rates, account risk, and HyperEVM token transfers through MCP tools, with caching and rate limiting to protect upstream APIs.121MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol (MCP) server for the Hyperliquid decentralized exchange, enabling AI assistants to perform trading operations, manage accounts, and retrieve market data.3MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables read-only access to Hyperliquid's public market, user, vault, and staking data via 61 MCP tools, covering perpetuals, spot, and borrow-lend information.MIT
TDQS
Scored across 41 tools
Most tools target distinct data types, but several near-duplicates exist (e.g., hl_open_orders vs hl_frontend_open_orders; hl_user_fills vs hl_user_fills_by_time; hl_meta vs hl_meta_and_asset_ctxs). Descriptions help differentiate them, but an agent could still easily misselect between pairs that differ only in subtle scope or parameters.
All tools consistently use the 'hl_' prefix with snake_case and descriptive noun phrases (e.g., hl_user_funding_history, hl_candles, hl_spot_meta). The naming pattern is highly predictable and uniform across all 41 tools.
41 tools is a large surface, but it reflects the broad Hyperliquid API info endpoints. However, many tools are near variants of one another (meta, meta_and_asset_ctxs, user_fills variants), inflating the count and making navigation more difficult than necessary.
The toolset covers an extensive range of read-only query endpoints, but entirely lacks any write/trading tools (order placement, cancellation, transfers, staking actions). For a trading-focused server, this is a significant gap that would prevent agents from executing core workflows.