whale-data

DeFi / on-chain summary

defi_summary

Read-onlyIdempotent

One-call on-chain DEX state across Ethereum, Base and Arbitrum: 24h volume and TVL per chain, the highest-volume tokens, and whale swap activity (buy/sell split, unique and repeat wallets, per-DEX breakdown). Keyless returns totals and a short token list with swap USD withheld; a developer plan returns the full table. Descriptive market data only.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No	One line saying what the numbers cover, or why there are none. Read it before reporting any zero as a market reading.
`chains`	No	One row per chain: the chain, tokens tracked, 24h volume and total value locked.
`totals`	No	Across all chains: 24h volume, total value locked, how many chains and how many tokens are tracked.
`available`	No	False when this lane could not answer: a producer is dark, the pair sits outside this plan, or the argument named something we do not carry. Absent or true means the numbers are a real reading, not a guess.
`top_tokens`	No	The highest-volume tokens: chain, symbol, name, address, price, 24h change, volume and value locked. Shortened on a keyless connection.
`updated_at`	No	When the on-chain token snapshot was published.
`coverage_note`	No	What the numbers do and do not cover.
`whale_activity`	No	Large swaps in the window: how many, buy and sell dollars, net, the largest, unique and repeat wallets, and the split per exchange and per chain. A keyless connection gets the counts with magnitudes_withheld set instead of the dollars.
`tokens_withheld`	No	Keyless only: how many tokens were cut from top_tokens.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only/idempotent/non-destructive. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it discloses that keyless access returns totals with swap USD withheld, while a developer plan returns the full table. This is useful behavioral detail not present in structured fields.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, followed by useful tier details. No filler or redundancy; every sentence contributes.

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?

With no parameters, strong annotations, and an output schema present, the description fully covers what the tool does and its behavioral quirks. The access-tier distinction is a nice extra that makes it self-contained.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema covers everything trivially. The description adds context about access-tier differences but doesn't need to explain parameter semantics. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, which fits.

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 opens with 'One-call on-chain DEX state across Ethereum, Base and Arbitrum', clearly stating the resource and scope. It enumerates specific metrics (24h volume, TVL, top tokens, whale swap activity), distinguishing it from sibling tools like market_overview or whale_trades.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The 'One-call' phrasing implies a high-level overview use case, and 'Descriptive market data only' signals a non-trading context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or point to alternatives, which would push it to a 5.

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

All whale-data tools Inspect

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

Need Help?