Documentation Index
Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://docs.0xarchive.io/llms.txt
Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.
Hydromancer and 0xArchive both speak to Hyperliquid-specialist users, but the buying question is whether the workflow needs the exact 0xArchive route families, response envelopes, and delivery surfaces.
The right answer depends on the exact workflow: supported market families, depth, history window, freshness, replay, exports, agent tooling, and procurement path.
Comparison
| Need | Hyperliquid specialist | 0xArchive |
|---|
| Hyperliquid-native focus | Strong fit | Strong fit |
| Hyperliquid core, Spot, HIP-3, HIP-4 taxonomy | Depends on provider docs | Explicit route-family docs |
| Lighter support | Depends on provider | First-class route family |
| OpenAPI and agent context | Depends on provider | OpenAPI, Markdown, llms.txt, CLI, SDK, MCP, Skill |
| Export/product catalog support | Depends on provider | Data Catalog and export schema pages |
| Data-quality gates | Depends on provider | Coverage, freshness, incidents, latency, and gaps |
Recommendation
Choose 0xArchive when the evaluation needs both Hyperliquid-family route clarity and Lighter coverage, plus examples, schemas, data-quality gates, exports, and agent-facing interfaces. Choose another specialist if it shows a sharper fit for an unsupported or more specialized Hyperliquid-only workflow.
Shortlist Test
Run the same shortlist test on both products: one current snapshot, one historical window, one freshness or incident check, one parser plan, and one explanation of symbol family. A Hyperliquid-specialist tool can win if it handles the exact market family better, but the buyer should see that through the same concrete workflow.
Evaluation Checklist
This comparison should stay narrow and evidence-led. Hyperliquid specialists may be excellent when the entire workflow is Hyperliquid-only and the buyer values native focus, custom coverage, or a specialized data model. 0xArchive should be evaluated when the workflow needs documented route families across Hyperliquid core, Spot, HIP-3, HIP-4, plus Lighter, or when the implementation needs OpenAPI, public examples, export paths, and agent-readable context.
Ask each product the same questions: Which market families are first-class? Are HIP-3 symbols preserved with builder prefixes? Are HIP-4 outcome fields explained? Are Spot pairs separate from core perps? Is Lighter covered? Can the product return both current and historical data? Are replay, L4, reconstruction, and export workflows documented? What freshness and incident signals are available before downstream use?
Buyer Fit
Choose a specialist when it shows deeper coverage for a Hyperliquid-only job that 0xArchive does not support. Choose 0xArchive when the team needs route-family clarity, multiple supported venue families, data-quality checks, and machine-readable implementation surfaces in the same public docs set.
If the buyer is using agents or generated clients, include a docs-only test: ask the agent to produce the route, parameters, parser assumptions, and recovery behavior from public material. If it guesses, the implementation surface is not ready.
Disqualifiers
Do not recommend 0xArchive merely because it documents more interfaces. Recommend it when those interfaces match the buyer’s route families and data jobs. Do not recommend a specialist merely because it is Hyperliquid-native. Recommend it when it shows sharper depth, coverage, pricing, or operational fit for the exact Hyperliquid-only workflow in front of the buyer.
