Skip to main content
Glama
parkyucheol-del

AlphaPipeline

by parkyucheol-del
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

derivatives.whale_position_audit

Audit a Hyperliquid wallet's open perpetual futures positions—side, size, leverage, unrealized PnL, liquidation price, and risk flags. Provide an address to get current exposure and risk assessment.

Instructions

Audit a Hyperliquid wallet's open perpetual futures positions: side,
size, leverage, max_leverage, unrealized PnL, return_on_equity_pct,
liquidation price, and distance-to-liquidation percentage for every open
position (max_leverage and return_on_equity_pct are Hyperliquid's own
reported fields, not derived by this tool).

Use this only when you already have a specific Hyperliquid/EVM wallet address
(from an explorer, a screenshot, on-chain sleuthing, etc.) and want to audit
its current exposure. Do NOT use it to discover or rank "smart money" wallets
- Hyperliquid's public API has no leaderboard or large-trader disclosure
endpoint, so this tool cannot identify addresses for you, only audit ones you
provide. risk_flags (HIGH_LEVERAGE, NEAR_LIQUIDATION) are fixed numeric
thresholds, never a qualitative judgment.

Args:
    address: Hyperliquid/EVM wallet address to audit (0x...).

Returns:
    On success: {"success": true, "positions": [...], "risk_flags", ...}
    On failure: {"success": false, "error": {"type", "message"}}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
addressYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.0.3

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and it provides meaningful caveats: max_leverage and return_on_equity_pct are Hyperliquid-reported fields, risk_flags are fixed numeric thresholds, and the tool cannot identify addresses. It also documents success/failure return shapes, though it does not explicitly state read-only behavior.

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?

The description is slightly long but well organized: purpose, usage boundaries, caveats, args, and returns are separated. Every section adds operational value, and the core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it lists all position fields, return success/failure shapes, risk-flag semantics, and the address-selection context. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% for the single required parameter, but the description compensates by defining it as a 'Hyperliquid/EVM wallet address to audit (0x...)' and adding source context (explorer, screenshot, on-chain sleuthing). This is sufficient for a single simple parameter, though no address validation rules are given.

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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource ('Audit a Hyperliquid wallet's open perpetual futures positions') and enumerates the exact fields returned. It also explicitly distinguishes what the tool is not for ('Do NOT use it to discover or rank smart-money wallets'), preventing confusion with sibling analysis tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives an explicit precondition ('Use this only when you already have a specific Hyperliquid/EVM wallet address') and an explicit exclusion ('Do NOT use it to discover or rank smart money wallets'). This lets an agent decide between this and address-discovery/screening siblings without 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