Skip to main content
Glama
parkyucheol-del

AlphaPipeline

by parkyucheol-del
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

prediction.hip4_mispricing

Detect monotonicity violations in Hyperliquid HIP-4 price-binary markets by comparing strike ladders, quantifying mispricing in basis points and max riskless profit.

Instructions

Finds monotonicity violations among Hyperliquid HIP-4 "above $X"
price-binary markets: within the same underlying/expiry/period, a
higher strike's Yes price should never exceed a lower strike's - any
reversal is a logical inconsistency, quantified as violation_bp and a
textbook max_riskless_profit_per_usd (before fees/slippage/execution
risk - not investment advice). Reuses prediction.hip4_price_ladder's
cache (no new upstream call). Only rungs sharing the exact same
(expiry, period) are ever compared - see settlement_condition_note.

Args:
    underlying: Asset symbol for crypto price-binary markets (e.g. "BTC",
        "ETH", "SOL", "HYPE").

Returns:
    On success: {"success": true, "underlying", "expiry_groups_checked",
        "total_rungs_checked", "violation_count", "violations",
        "settlement_condition_note", ...}
    On failure: {"success": false, "error": {"type", "message"}}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
underlyingYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.6.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the cache-reuse behavior (no new upstream call), that profit is pre-fees/slippage/execution risk, the eligibility constraint on compared rungs, and the success/failure return shapes. It lacks anything on auth or rate limits, but adds substantial context beyond the schema.

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 definition is front-loaded with the core definition of the violation, then constraints, then args/returns. It is a little verbose with parenthetical asides ('not investment advice', 'no new upstream call'), but each section is purposeful and well organized.

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?

For a one-parameter analytical tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete enough: it defines the analysis, the qualifying constraint, and the return fields including violation_bp and max_riskless_profit_per_usd. Minor gaps (no explicit alternative guidance, no auth notes) keep it from being exhaustive.

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?

The single parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate, and it does by explaining 'underlying' as an asset symbol for crypto price-binary markets with concrete examples (BTC, ETH, SOL, HYPE). Since there is only one parameter, this is close to full compensation.

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 (finds) and resource (monotonicity violations among Hyperliquid HIP-4 'above $X' price-binary markets), with a precise scope definition of what a violation is. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling prediction.hip4_price_ladder by noting it reuses that tool's cache rather than making a new upstream call.

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?

The description explains the condition under which comparisons are valid (only rungs sharing the exact same expiry/period) and points to settlement_condition_note, giving implied usage. However, it never states explicitly when to prefer this tool over siblings like hip4_price_ladder or polymarket_mispricing, leaving the alternative-selection decision 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