Hyperliquid MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose in the trading lifecycle. Orders (place, cancel, get_open) are cleanly separated from positions (get, close), and market data tools (list_markets, get_market_info, get_orderbook) serve different information needs without overlap.
Naming Consistency5/5
Excellent consistency throughout. All tools use snake_case with clear verb_noun or get_noun patterns (e.g., place_order, get_account_info, list_markets). The verb choices (place, cancel, close, get, list, set) are precise and predictable.
Tool Count4/5
Ten tools is a reasonable scope for active trading operations, covering account, market data, orders, and positions. While the count is appropriate, a comprehensive trading surface might additionally include order history or modification tools, making it slightly lean.
Completeness4/5
Covers the core trading lifecycle well (account balance, market data, order management, position closing). Minor gaps include order history/fills, the ability to modify existing orders, and funding rate history—though agents can work around these by canceling/replacing orders and using current market data.
Average 3.4/5 across 10 of 10 tools scored. Lowest: 2.8/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to mention critical trading implications: whether this affects liquidation prices, if changes apply retroactively to existing positions, validation limits on leverage values, or that this is a state-mutating operation with financial risk.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely brief at 6 words. While front-loaded and without filler, this level of brevity is inappropriate for a high-stakes trading operation, omitting necessary warnings and behavioral context that should earn their place in the description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a financial tool that modifies margin requirements and liquidation risk, the description is dangerously incomplete. It lacks disclosure of side effects, error conditions (e.g., excessive leverage), or output expectations. No output schema exists to compensate for these gaps.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'perpetual market' which loosely contextualizes the 'symbol' parameter, but adds no semantic detail beyond the schema's own descriptions (e.g., doesn't explain cross vs isolated margin implications or valid leverage ranges).
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?
The description clearly states the core action ('Set leverage') and scope ('perpetual market'), using a specific verb and resource. However, it lacks differentiation from siblings (though none are leverage-related) and doesn't clarify whether this sets account default or position-specific leverage.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., requiring an open position), or sequencing (whether to set before or after placing orders). The description stands alone without workflow context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description fails to disclose side effects, failure modes (insufficient margin), confirmation behavior, or that orders persist until filled/cancelled.
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?
Extremely concise single sentence, front-loaded with key action; appropriately sized though minimal given operation complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Insufficient for a financial trading tool with 6 parameters; missing output behavior, error conditions, and relationships to cancel_order/close_position despite no output schema existing.
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 has 100% description coverage establishing baseline; description adds no parameter relationships (e.g., price only for limit) or domain context beyond schema.
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?
Clear verb and resource (place orders on Hyperliquid perps), distinguishes from siblings (cancel/close/get operations) by specifying 'place' and order types, though lacks explicit differentiation from close_position.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use limit vs market, when price is required, or prerequisites like leverage settings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, description fails to disclose error conditions, idempotency, side effects, or what happens to partially filled orders.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise at 6 words; single sentence is front-loaded with action verb and contains no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Minimal viable description for a simple operation; lacks return value documentation (no output schema) and edge case handling.
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 has 100% coverage with adequate descriptions; tool description adds no additional parameter context beyond repeating 'order ID'.
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?
Clear verb (cancel) and resource (open order by ID), implicitly distinguishes from close_position via 'order' vs 'position' terminology.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use versus alternatives (e.g., close_position for executed trades) or prerequisites (e.g., checking open orders first).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get' but fails to disclose latency characteristics, authentication requirements, error handling for invalid symbols, or data freshness guarantees.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence of nine words that immediately communicates the core function without redundancy or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple 2-parameter schema with complete coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It mentions 'bids and asks' hinting at return structure, but lacks explicit return value documentation or behavioral context expected when no output schema is present.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds slight value by specifying 'perpetual market' context for the symbol parameter, though it does not elaborate on depth behavior beyond the schema's default value description.
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?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves the orderbook with specific mention of 'bids and asks' for a 'perpetual market'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_account_info or get_positions by specifying the resource type, though it could explicitly differentiate from get_market_info.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_market_info, nor does it mention prerequisites such as valid market symbols or rate limit considerations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses support for both market and limit close behaviors, but lacks information on error cases (e.g., no open position) or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action with zero redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for the simple 2-parameter input, though missing error handling details given no output schema exists.
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 100% so baseline applies; description adds minimal context beyond schema but clarifies the market/limit dichotomy.
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?
Clearly states the tool closes open positions and distinguishes between market and limit close modes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to select this tool versus siblings like place_order, or when to prefer market vs limit close.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'current' data but fails to disclose cache behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling (e.g., invalid symbols). The term 'perpetual' hints at funding rate mechanics but lacks explicit behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with zero waste. Front-loaded with the action verb, immediately followed by the four specific data fields. Every word earns its place—no filler or redundancy.
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?
Despite lacking an output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating the four specific return fields. For a single-parameter read operation, this is adequate coverage, though mentioning data freshness or response format would improve it further.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the parameter is well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds contextual alignment by specifying 'perpetual market,' which clarifies the domain for the symbol parameter, but does not add syntax details or format constraints beyond the schema examples.
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 provides a specific verb ('Get'), identifies the resource ('perpetual market'), and explicitly lists the four data points returned (price, funding rate, open interest, 24h volume). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_orderbook (depth data) and get_account_info (user data).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
While the description implies usage by listing specific metrics, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus list_markets (to discover symbols) or get_orderbook (for trading depth). No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses read-only behavior ('List') and authentication scope ('connected wallet'), but omits rate limits, pagination behavior, or what 'open' specifically means (unfilled vs pending cancellation).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with verb, zero waste. Appropriate length for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a zero-parameter read operation. Mentions 'connected wallet' establishing scope, but lacks return value description (relevant given no output schema exists). Missing clarification on what constitutes an 'open' order in this trading context.
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?
Zero parameters present. Per rubric baseline for 0-param tools is 4. The description correctly implies no filtering parameters are accepted by stating 'all open orders'.
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?
The description uses specific verb 'List' with clear resource 'open orders' and scope 'connected wallet'. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like get_positions (filled trades) and get_orderbook (market depth) via standard trading terminology, though explicit differentiation is absent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives (e.g., get_positions vs open orders) or prerequisites. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and trading context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It compensates for the missing output schema by listing the specific data categories returned (wallet balance, margin summary, withdrawable funds), but omits critical operational details such as rate limits, data freshness (real-time vs. cached), or scope (all sub-accounts vs. specific ones).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description consists of a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded with the verb and immediately specifies the returned data types, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters) and lack of output schema, the description adequately compensates by enumerating the specific financial metrics returned. It successfully communicates the tool's scope for an account information fetcher, though it could clarify whether the data covers all account types or requires specific permissions.
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 input schema contains zero parameters, establishing a baseline score of 4. The description appropriately makes no parameter claims, as there are none to document.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly enumerates the three data categories retrieved (wallet balance, margin summary, withdrawable funds). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_market_info (market data) and get_open_orders (order data), though it could more explicitly contrast with get_positions regarding margin data overlap.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_positions (which may also return margin-related data) or prerequisites such as authentication requirements. It states what it does but not when an agent should invoke it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses what data is returned (unrealized PnL, leverage, liquidation price), compensating for missing output schema. However, it fails to declare safety properties (read-only/idempotent) or rate limits that agents need for mutation-risk assessment.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single, dense sentence with zero waste. Front-loaded action verb, followed by resource scope, followed by return value specification. Every clause earns its place.
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?
Given no output schema exists, the description effectively documents return value structure by listing key fields (unrealized PnL, leverage, liquidation price). Adequate for a zero-parameter read operation, though explicit read-only declaration would improve completeness.
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?
Tool has zero parameters, establishing baseline of 4. Description appropriately requires no parameter elaboration since input schema is empty.
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?
Specific verb 'List' + resource 'open positions' clearly defines scope. Explicitly distinguishes from sibling get_open_orders by using 'positions' vs 'orders', and from close_position via 'List' (read) vs 'close' (write). The inclusion of return fields (unrealized PnL, leverage, liquidation price) further clarifies this retrieves active trading exposure data.
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?
Provides implicit guidance through specific resource naming (distinguishes positions from orders/account), but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives like get_account_info or set_leverage. No explicit prerequisites or exclusions stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. 'List' implies read-only, non-destructive behavior, but description omits rate limits, caching behavior, or response structure (array of symbols vs. full objects) that would help an agent plan invocation strategy.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single 9-word sentence with action-first structure. No redundant phrases or boilerplate. Every word earns its place.
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?
Adequate for a zero-parameter discovery tool. While no output schema exists, the description sufficiently conveys the tool's role. Minor gap: does not hint at return format (e.g., 'returns market symbols') which would help agent interpret results without invoking.
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?
Zero parameters present, meeting the baseline score of 4 per rubric. Description correctly implies no filtering is available (returns 'all' markets), which aligns with the empty schema.
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?
Clear specific verb 'List' with explicit resource 'perpetual futures markets' and scope 'all available on Hyperliquid'. Distinguishes from sibling get_market_info by implying bulk retrieval vs. specific details, and clearly separates from trading actions like place_order.
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?
Provides implied usage context (market discovery/initialization) but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison with get_market_info. Does not clarify whether to use this for trading preparation versus runtime market monitoring.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![hyperliquid-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/samklein952-hub/hyperliquid-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/samklein952-hub/hyperliquid-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![hyperliquid-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/samklein952-hub/hyperliquid-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/samklein952-hub/hyperliquid-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/samklein952-hub/hyperliquid-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server