flow_summary
Read-onlyIdempotent
Whale-flow summary per ticker: transfer count, total USD volume, mint/burn USD (supply change) and the largest transfer.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hours | No |
Otto Data — Robinhood Chain
by app.ottodata
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by enumerating the output metrics and clarifying mint/burn as supply change, which goes beyond the annotations. However, it lacks limitations or data source details.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and efficiently lists the key metrics. There is no superfluous content, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema, and safety is covered by annotations. However, the description omits the meaning of the 'hours' parameter and does not differentiate from the sibling 'token_flows', leaving ambiguity in usage. It is adequate but has clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single 'hours' parameter has zero schema description coverage and is not mentioned in the tool description. The parameter name 'Hours' and default 24 give a hint, but the description fails to explain its meaning (e.g., lookback period), so the description does not compensate for the low schema coverage.
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 provides a whale-flow summary per ticker with specific metrics (transfer count, total USD volume, mint/burn USD, largest transfer). However, it doesn't distinguish from the sibling tool 'token_flows', which likely performs a similar function, preventing a 5.
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 implies the tool is for whale-flow summaries per ticker but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like 'token_flows'. There are no exclusions or prerequisites mentioned, so usage is implied rather than clearly directed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, with detailed descriptions that separate e.g. hood_basis_snapshot from hood_basis_history and perp_spot_basis. A few clusters like flow_summary vs token_flows and multiple gap/basis tools could still cause slight ambiguity, but the descriptions are strong enough to guide correct selection.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with domain prefixes (hood_, agent_, competition_, partner_), and verbs are used predictably (report_, execute_, get_, etc.). There is no mixing of conventions or vague generic names.
Tool Count3/5
39 tools is on the high side, but the server covers a very broad domain (market data, signals, trading execution, competition, partner APIs, agent reporting). While many tools earn their place, a few could be consolidated (e.g., gap/basis variants), making it feel heavier than necessary for typical usage.
Completeness4/5
The surface covers the core lifecycle: market data, signals, paper/real/partner trading, position tracking, and performance reporting. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit wallet balance or order cancellation), but the core workflows are well-covered and derived endpoints fill most needs.