Skip to main content
Glama

whale-data

by com.coinlobster

Options intelligence (Deribit)

options
Read-onlyIdempotent

The options picture for BTC or ETH from Deribit: total open interest, the strikes holding the most of it (the walls, which act as magnets into expiry), the put/call balance, max pain per near expiry, the implied-vol regime (DVOL), and recent large option trades. Aggregate market structure, keyless; the large-trade feed deepens on a developer plan. Descriptive market data only.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
coinNoBTC or ETH (the only coins Deribit lists options for). A pair like BTC/USD works too, the quote leg is dropped. Defaults to BTC.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
coinNoThe coin these options are for (BTC or ETH).
dvolNoImplied-vol index: how big a swing the market is pricing in. Lower is calmer.
noteNoOne line saying what the numbers cover, or why there are none. Read it before reporting any zero as a market reading.
venueNoAlways Deribit.
maxPainNoPer near expiry, the strike where the most options expire worthless.
summaryNoThe answer in one plain sentence, computed from the fields below. Open the reply with this, then let the numbers back it up. Null only when there was nothing to summarise.
expiriesNoOpen interest grouped by expiry date, with days to go.
putOiUsdNoOpen interest sitting in puts (downside protection), in USD.
availableNoFalse 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.
callOiUsdNoOpen interest sitting in calls (upside bets), in USD.
updatedAtNoWhen this snapshot was published.
gammaWallsNoThe strikes holding the most open interest, biggest first, with the call and put split. These often act as magnets into expiry.
putCallRatioNoPut open interest divided by call open interest. Above ~1.15 is put-heavy, below ~0.7 is call-heavy.
coins_coveredNoThe coins options are carried for (BTC, ETH).
openInterestUsdNoTotal open interest in USD across all listed options.
underlyingPriceNoSpot price of the coin, from the venue.
recentLargeTradesNoLarge option buys and sells above a size floor, newest first. Deeper on a developer plan.
recentTradesTruncatedNoTrue when the large-trade list was shortened for a keyless caller.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the tool is 'keyless', the large-trade feed deepens on a developer plan, and the data is 'descriptive only' — clarifying access levels and informational nature.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is efficiently structured with the core purpose and data content front-loaded, followed by access context. Every clause adds value, though the parenthetical 'which act as magnets into expiry' is mildly interpretive rather than strictly necessary.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With an output schema present and annotations covering the read-only safety profile, the description does not need to explain return values or side effects. It adequately covers data categories, asset scope, keyless access, and plan-dependent depth, making it sufficient for a simple one-parameter tool.

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 covers 100% of the only parameter (coin), including valid values, pair handling, and default. The tool description merely repeats 'BTC or ETH' and adds no new parameter semantics, so it stays at the baseline for high 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 this is a read-only options market data tool for BTC/ETH from Deribit, enumerating the specific metrics returned (open interest, strikes/walls, put/call balance, max pain, DVOL, large trades). It differentiates itself from the broad sibling list by being the only options-specific tool, though it does not explicitly name a sibling it is not.

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 usage: anyone needing Deribit options market structure should use this tool. The 'keyless' and 'descriptive market data only' notes provide access and scope context, but there are no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use statements or named alternatives, leaving the agent to infer from the title and domain.

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