Skip to main content
Glama

whale-data

by com.coinlobster

Crypto news and sentiment

crypto_news
Read-onlyIdempotent

Recent crypto headlines with a pre-computed sentiment score (-100 to +100) for one coin plus the macro picture. Descriptive market data only.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
coinNoCoin symbol, for example BTC. A pair like ETH/USD works too, the quote leg is dropped. Defaults to BTC. News coverage is not every coin: where nothing was recorded the reply carries covered:false and a null sentiment_score, which is absence and not a neutral reading.
pairNoAlias for coin.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
coinNoThe coin the headlines and score are about.
noteNoOne line saying what the numbers cover, or why there are none. Read it before reporting any zero as a market reading.
macroNoThe same three fields for the market as a whole: sentiment, sentiment_score and summary.
coveredNoFalse when nothing was recorded for this coin, which is why sentiment_score is null. Not a neutral reading.
summaryNoThe pre-written summary for this coin, or null.
realtimeNoTrue when the headlines are live. Keyless connections get the delayed set.
headlinesNoUp to 20 recent headlines, each with title, source, published time and link.
sentimentNoThe wording that goes with the score, or unknown.
sentiment_scoreNoMinus 100 to plus 100. Null means nothing was measured, which is not the same as zero.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the sentiment score range (-100 to +100), that only one coin is covered per call, and the parameter description clarifies the difference between absence of data (covered:false, null sentiment) and a neutral reading. This aligns with annotations and enriches understanding.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every phrase earns its place. No redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simple tool with two parameters, a comprehensive output schema, and robust annotations, the description covers the necessary context: scope (one coin), sentiment range, macro picture, and read-only nature. The parameter descriptions handle edge cases like unsupported coins and pair normalization, making this complete.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with both 'coin' and 'pair' already explained in detail (defaults, alias, pair handling, absence behavior). The main description adds little beyond the schema, so it appropriately relies on the schema for parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 clearly states the tool's function: fetching recent crypto headlines with a pre-computed sentiment score for a specific coin, plus a macro picture. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like market_snapshot or whale_trades by highlighting the news and sentiment focus.

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 phrase 'Descriptive market data only' implies this is a read-only informational tool, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives or when not to use it. The description implies usage for news/sentiment context but does not provide exclusions or alternative recommendations compared to sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All whale-data toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools share the same broad purpose domains, such as market_digest vs market_overview vs market_snapshot and whale_context vs whale_profile vs whale_flow, making selection genuinely ambiguous for an agent. The long descriptions help separate them, but the sheer number of overlapping 'one-call' market and whale views still invites misselection, and whale_tape is a direct duplicate alias.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names are consistently snake_case and mostly follow a clear domain-prefix pattern: market_*, whale_*, hl_*, defi_*. Minor deviations like liquidations vs market_liquidations, liq_zones, my_access, and the deprecated whale_tape keep it from a perfect score, but the overall convention is predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

With 30 tools, the server exceeds the reasonable upper bound and feels heavy even for a broad data domain. Many tools could be consolidated—for instance, several one-call market summary tools and multiple whale-flow variants—without losing capability.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers an impressively wide range of whale and market data: news, liquidations, funding, DEX activity, Hyperliquid wallets, market scans, history, and plan access. There are minor gaps such as no general price/OHLC history or per-wallet trade history beyond swaps and fills, but agents can work around these using the existing surface.

Resources