whale-data

On-chain wallet activity

dex_wallet

Read-onlyIdempotent

One Ethereum, Base or Arbitrum address: its recorded DEX swaps, net flow per token and activity pattern. For a Hyperliquid ACCOUNT use hl_wallet instead: the same 0x string can exist on both and they are different subjects with different pages. Real coverage limit, state it once when the answer turns on it: the swap feed sees roughly 7 percent of a wallet total activity, so quiet here does not mean inactive. Descriptive market data only.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Max recorded swaps returned for this address. Defaults to 25, hard ceiling 100 for everyone and no plan raises it.
`address`	Yes	Ethereum, Base or Arbitrum address, 0x followed by 40 hex characters. Required. This is the on-chain wallet, not the Hyperliquid account that can sit at the same 0x string: use hl_wallet for that one. An address outside the followed set answers tracked:false, which is a coverage fact and not a wallet doing nothing.

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.
`error`	No	invalid_address when the address is not 0x plus 40 hex characters. Nothing was looked up.
`venue`	No	Always on-chain. This is NOT the Hyperliquid account that can sit at the same 0x string.
`capped`	No	Present only when an argument was cut down to a ceiling. Absent means nothing was clamped, so a smaller number than you asked for is the data and not a limit.
`events`	No	Its recorded swaps, newest first.
`address`	No	The address, normalised.
`profile`	No	What this address has been doing: net flow per token and its activity pattern.
`tracked`	No	False when this address is outside the followed set. A coverage fact, not a wallet doing nothing.
`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.
`access_note`	No	What this connection could not return and what lifts it. Always pass this on to the user: it is the only place that information appears.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the 7% coverage limit, the meaning of tracked:false, and the 'descriptive market data only' caveat. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each purposeful: the first states the tool's function, the second disambiguates from a sibling, and the third discloses the critical coverage limitation. No wasted words; information is front-loaded and directly relevant.

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 output schema exists (so return values are documented) and annotations cover safety, the description provides the essential remaining context: the tool's scope (Ethereum/Base/Arbitrum), the sibling distinction, and a realistic coverage limitation that affects interpretation. This is complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully describes both parameters, including address format and limit defaults/cap. The tool description reinforces the address/vs Hyperliquid distinction but does not add new parameter-specific meaning beyond what is in the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 Ethereum, Base or Arbitrum address: its recorded DEX swaps, net flow per token and activity pattern,' clearly identifying the resource (wallet address) and specific actions (DEX swaps, net flow, activity pattern). It also explicitly distinguishes from hl_wallet, ensuring no confusion among siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It gives explicit direction to use hl_wallet for Hyperliquid accounts ('For a Hyperliquid ACCOUNT use hl_wallet instead') and warns about the 7% coverage limit with the instruction to 'state it once when the answer turns on it,' which guides when and how to interpret results. This is strong usage guidance.

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?