Enables interaction with Bitcoin on Hyperliquid (UBTC) through DeFi operations including lending, borrowing, and token swapping on the Hyperliquid EVM network.
Enables interaction with Ethereum on Hyperliquid (UETH) through DeFi operations including lending, borrowing, and token swapping on the Hyperliquid EVM network.
Enables interaction with Tether USD (USDT0) stablecoin through DeFi operations including lending, borrowing, and token swapping on the Hyperliquid EVM network via HyperLend protocol and Kittenswap DEX.
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@HyperEVM MCP show my current lending positions and health factor"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
A Model Context Protocol server for interacting with HyperLend protocol and Kittenswap DEX on Hyperliquid EVM network. This MCP enables AI agents to perform DeFi operations including lending, borrowing, and token swapping.
Supply/Lend: Deposit assets to earn lending yield and enable borrowing capacity
Withdraw: Retrieve supplied assets and accrued interest
Borrow: Borrow assets against supplied collateral with variable or stable rates
Repay: Repay borrowed debt to reduce debt burden and improve health factor
Portfolio Management: Comprehensive account state and position tracking
Market Data: View all available lending markets and their parameters
Token Swapping: Automated token swaps with slippage protection
Multi-Pool Support: Support for different tick spacings and pool configurations
Native Token Support: Seamless HYPE (native) and wrapped token handling
HYPE - Native Hyperliquid token
WHYPE - Wrapped HYPE
wstHYPE - Wrapped Staked HYPE
UBTC - Bitcoin on Hyperliquid
UETH - Ethereum on Hyperliquid
USDe - Ethena USDe stablecoin
USDT0 - Tether USD
sUSDe - Staked USDe
Related MCP server: KAIA-MCP Server
npm install -g hyperlend-mcpUsing npx (recommended)
{
"mcpServers": {
"hyperlend": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["hyperevm_mcp"],
"env": {
"PRIVATE_KEY": "your_private_key_here",
"RPC_URL": "https://rpc.hypurrscan.io" "[optional]"
}
}
}
}Option C: Create .env file
Create a .env file in your working directory:
PRIVATE_KEY=your_private_key_here
RPC_URL=https://rpc.hypurrscan.io <optional>⚠️ Security Note: Keep your private key secure and never share it publicly.
Supply/lend assets to HyperLend protocol
Parameters: token, amount, onBehalfOf (optional)
Example: Supply 100 USDT0 to earn lending yield
Withdraw supplied assets and accrued interest
Parameters: token, amount ('max' for full withdrawal), to (optional)
Example: Withdraw all supplied WHYPE
Borrow assets against supplied collateral
Parameters: token, amount, interestRateMode (variable/stable), onBehalfOf (optional)
Example: Borrow 0.5 UETH against WHYPE collateral
Repay borrowed debt
Parameters: token, amount ('max' for full repayment), interestRateMode, onBehalfOf (optional)
Example: Repay all UBTC debt
Get comprehensive account overview
Parameters: userAddress (optional), detailed (boolean)
Returns: Complete position data, health factor, borrowing capacity
View all available lending markets
Parameters: detailed (boolean)
Returns: All supported tokens and their lending parameters
Swap tokens on Kittenswap DEX
Parameters: tokenIn, tokenOut, amountIn, amountOutMinimum (optional), tickSpacing, slippageTolerance, deadline (optional)
Example: Swap 10 WHYPE for UBTC with 3% slippage tolerance
# 1. Supply WHYPE as collateral
hyperlendSupply --token WHYPE --amount 100
# 2. Borrow USDT0 against collateral
hyperlendBorrow --token USDT0 --amount 50
# 3. Check account health
hyperlendAccountState --detailed true
# 4. Repay debt
hyperlendRepay --token USDT0 --amount max
# 5. Withdraw collateral
hyperlendWithdraw --token WHYPE --amount max# Swap HYPE for UBTC
kittenswapSwapTokens --tokenIn HYPE --tokenOut UBTC --amountIn 1.0 --slippageTolerance 3.0Chain: Hyperliquid EVM (Chain ID: 998)
RPC URL: https://rpc.hypurrscan.io
Native Token: HYPE
HyperLend Protocol: Aave V3 fork optimized for Hyperliquid
Kittenswap: Uniswap V3 fork for Hyperliquid
Node.js 18+
Hyperliquid EVM wallet with HYPE for gas fees
Private key for transaction signing
Your private key stays local and is never shared
All transactions happen on-chain via Hyperliquid EVM network
Open source and auditable code
Built on battle-tested Aave V3 and Uniswap V3 protocols
For issues and questions:
GitHub Issues: https://github.com/PlayAINetwork/hyperlend-mcp/issues
Documentation: Check the inline tool descriptions for detailed parameter information
MIT License - see LICENSE file for details.
Contributions are welcome! Please feel free to submit a Pull Request.
Fetch comprehensive token details including price, market data, and trading metrics from DexScreener API
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tokenAddress | Yes | Contract address of the token to fetch details for |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states fetching from DexScreener API, implying read-only behavior, but fails to disclose potential behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or data freshness.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is concise and zero waste. However, no structural elements (e.g., bullet points) are used, though not necessary for this simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one parameter and no output schema, the description provides a partial picture of outputs (price, market data, trading metrics) but lacks details on return format, error conditions, or data coverage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's description of tokenAddress.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Fetch), the resource (comprehensive token details), and the source (DexScreener API). It distinguishes from sibling tools which are DeFi actions or account state queries.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for fetching token market data, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusions. Context from sibling names helps, but the description itself lacks guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get comprehensive overview of your complete HyperLend position including collateral, debt, and health metrics
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| detailed | No | Whether to include detailed reserve-by-reserve breakdown | |
| userAddress | No | Address of the user to query (defaults to wallet address) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It indicates a read-only 'get' operation returning collateral, debt, and health metrics, but does not disclose if it triggers state changes, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The description is adequate but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and scope without extraneous words. It is front-loaded with 'Get comprehensive overview' and includes concrete elements (collateral, debt, health metrics).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple query tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context for an agent to use it correctly. It covers the return content broadly. Minor improvement would be mentioning that userAddress defaults to the wallet address, but that is already in the schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters (detailed, userAddress), so the description does not need to add parameter details. It does not provide any parameter-specific context beyond the schema, meeting the baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves a comprehensive overview of a HyperLend position, specifying the included assets (collateral, debt, health metrics). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hyperevmSupply or hyperevmBorrow which perform specific actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this tool is for checking overall position health, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., hyperevmGetReserves for reserve-level data). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Borrow assets against supplied collateral from HyperLend protocol with variable or stable interest rates
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | Yes | Token symbol (HYPE, UBTC, UETH, USDE, USDT0, SUSDE, WSTHYPE) or contract address | |
| amount | Yes | Amount to borrow (in human readable format) | |
| onBehalfOf | No | Optional: Address that will receive the debt (defaults to wallet address) | |
| interestRateMode | No | Interest rate mode | variable |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It fails to disclose important behaviors such as what happens with insufficient collateral, whether borrowed tokens are transferred immediately, or the effect on account state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a lending protocol interaction and lack of output schema or annotations, the description is too sparse. It omits key context like error conditions, return values, and relationship to collateral status.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All parameters are documented in the input schema, so baseline is 3. The tool description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'borrow' and the resource 'assets against supplied collateral', distinguishing it from sibling tools like hyperevmSupply and hyperevmRepay.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for borrowing with variable or stable rates, but does not specify when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor prerequisites like having supplied collateral.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
View all available lending markets and their current parameters in HyperLend protoco
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| detailed | No | Whether to include detailed information for each reserve |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the tool's function. It does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, or the impact of the 'detailed' parameter on output.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, concise but contains a typo ('protoco' instead of 'protocol'). It front-loads the purpose but could be slightly more structured without extra verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and simple input, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of reserves with parameters). It lacks this context, making it less useful for an agent to interpret results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (one parameter 'detailed' with description). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, merely implying the tool returns market parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: viewing all available lending markets and their current parameters in HyperLend protocol. It uses a specific verb 'view' and distinguishes from sibling tools like hyperevmSupply which perform actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like getTokenDetails or hyperevmAccountState. There are no explicit usage conditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Repay borrowed debt to HyperLend protocol to reduce debt burden and improve health factor
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | Yes | Token symbol (HYPE, UBTC, UETH, USDE, USDT0, SUSDE, WSTHYPE) or contract address | |
| amount | Yes | Amount to repay (in human readable format, or 'max' for full repayment) | |
| onBehalfOf | No | Optional: Address whose debt will be repaid (defaults to wallet address) | |
| interestRateMode | No | Interest rate mode of the debt | variable |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions repayment and health factor improvement, but misses critical details like approval requirements, transaction costs, or that this is a write operation. The description is too brief to be fully transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no extraneous information. It efficiently communicates the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and sibling tools like hyperevmBorrow and hyperevmSupply, the description lacks important context: prerequisites (must have borrowed), return behavior (no output described), and how this fits into the overall workflow. It is incomplete for guiding an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes all 4 parameters comprehensively (e.g., token format, amount 'max' option). The description adds no new information beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Repay borrowed debt'), the protocol ('HyperLend'), and the goal ('reduce debt burden and improve health factor'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like hyperevmBorrow (borrowing) and hyperevmSupply (supplying).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives is given. It implies usage when debt is present, but doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., must have previously borrowed) or when not to use (e.g., if health factor is already high).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Supply/lend assets to HyperLend protocol lending pools on Hyperliquid EVM network to earn lending yield and enable borrowing capacity
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | Yes | Token symbol (HYPE, UBTC, UETH, USDE, USDT0, SUSDE, WSTHYPE) or contract address | |
| amount | Yes | Amount to supply (in human readable format, e.g., '1.5' for 1.5 tokens) | |
| onBehalfOf | No | Optional: Address that will receive the aTokens (defaults to wallet address) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states the high-level purpose, omitting critical details such as token transfer mechanics, authorization requirements (e.g., token approval), or side effects (e.g., receipt of aTokens). This lack of transparency could confuse an agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and purpose. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (simple parameters, no output schema), the description omits important contextual cues like prerequisites (e.g., token balance, approvals) or the expected outcome. An agent may lack sufficient information to invoke the tool correctly without protocol-specific knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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 does not add any additional meaning to the parameters beyond the schema descriptions already present. It is adequate but not enhanced.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Supply/lend'), the target ('HyperLend protocol lending pools'), the network ('Hyperliquid EVM'), and the dual purpose ('earn lending yield and enable borrowing capacity'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hyperevmWithdraw and hyperevmBorrow.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for supplying assets, contrasting with borrowing or withdrawing, but does not explicitly state when to use it or provide exclusion criteria. No alternatives are mentioned, though sibling names offer weak context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Withdraw supplied assets and accrued interest from HyperLend protocol lending pools back to your wallet
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | Optional: Address to receive the withdrawn assets (defaults to wallet address) | |
| token | Yes | Token symbol (HYPE, UBTC, UETH, USDE, USDT0, SUSDE, WSTHYPE) or contract address | |
| amount | Yes | Amount to withdraw (in human readable format, or 'max' for maximum) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'withdraw' implying a state change, but lacks details on permissions, reversibility, gas costs, error conditions, or pool liquidity constraints. The mention of 'accrued interest' adds some value but is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the action efficiently with no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a DeFi withdrawal, the description is incomplete. It does not mention that the user must have previously supplied assets, what the output (e.g., transaction hash) might be, or any prerequisites. With no output schema, the description should provide more context about the result.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (to, token, amount) with descriptions. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, providing no extra context for the parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'withdraw', the resource 'supplied assets and accrued interest from HyperLend protocol lending pools', and the destination 'back to your wallet'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like hyperevmSupply (supply), hyperevmBorrow (borrow), and hyperevmRepay (repay).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for retrieving supplied assets, but it does not explicitly state when to use it, prerequisites (e.g., must have supplied previously), or when not to use it (e.g., insufficient balance). No guidance on alternatives is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Swap tokens using Kittenswap DEX on Hyperliquid EVM network with automated routing and slippage protection
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tokenIn | Yes | Token symbol or address to swap from (HYPE, WHYPE, UBTC, UETH, USDE, USDT0, SUSDE, WSTHYPE) | |
| amountIn | Yes | Amount of input token to swap (in human readable format) | |
| deadline | No | Deadline in minutes from now (default: 20 minutes) | |
| tokenOut | Yes | Token symbol or address to swap to (HYPE, WHYPE, UBTC, UETH, USDE, USDT0, SUSDE, WSTHYPE) | |
| tickSpacing | No | Tick spacing for the pool (common values: 1, 10, 60, 200) | |
| amountOutMinimum | No | Minimum amount of output token expected (defaults to 0 for any amount) | |
| slippageTolerance | No | Slippage tolerance percentage (default: 3.0%) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. Mentions 'automated routing and slippage protection' but fails to disclose destructive nature (sending tokens), necessary approvals, or failure modes like insufficient liquidity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence efficiently conveys the core purpose and key features. It is front-loaded but could be restructured to include key behavioral notes without adding length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of token swaps, the description omits critical information: return values, required user approvals, transaction signing, and potential side effects. No output schema or annotations to supplement.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter is well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, resulting in baseline score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly specifies the verb 'Swap', resource 'tokens', and network 'Kittenswap DEX on Hyperliquid EVM'. It is distinct from sibling tools which involve other DeFi actions or token details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it vs alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusion cases. Context is clear but lacking explicit usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v1.0.2getTokenDetailshyperevmAccountStatehyperevmBorrowhyperevmGetReserveshyperevmRepayhyperevmSupplyhyperevmWithdrawkittenswapSwapTokensEach tool targets a distinct area: market data (getTokenDetails), lending market parameters (hyperevmGetReserves), swapping (kittenswapSwapTokens), and user lending actions (hyperevmSupply, Withdraw, Borrow, Repay, AccountState). No overlap or ambiguity.
Most tools use camelCase, but patterns vary: some prefix with 'hyperevm' or 'kittenswap', while 'getTokenDetails' lacks a prefix. The mix of verb placements (hyperevmGetReserves vs hyperevmSupply) is inconsistent, though still readable.
With 8 tools covering token info, lending/borrowing, and swapping, the set is well-scoped for a DeFi server. No unnecessary duplication or missing core functionality.
The tool surface covers essential DeFi operations: market data, lending market overview, supply, withdraw, borrow, repay, account state, and swapping. Minor gaps like approval or liquidation are acceptable for typical usage.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Non-custodial DeFi tools for AI agents on Solana: swaps, perps, lending, staking, equities.
Crypto yield data for AI agents: lending, savings, staking, borrowing & stablecoin rates. 18 tools.
Non-custodial DeFi for AI agents: swaps, concentrated liquidity (V3/V4) zaps + ranges, 5 EVM chains
DeFi safety layer for AI agents: wallet safety, token risk, tx decode/simulate. 20 tools.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/PlayAINetwork/hyperEVM-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
