whale-data

Whale flow by hour

whale_flow

Read-onlyIdempotent

Hourly buy and sell USD flow buckets for one coin, CEX and DEX split, over a rolling window. Descriptive market data only.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`coin`	No	Coin symbol, for example BTC. A pair like ETH/USD works too, the quote leg is dropped. Required: with nothing to look up the call is refused rather than answered about a different coin.
`pair`	No	Alias for coin.
`hours`	No	How many hours of hourly buckets to read back. Defaults to the whole window, which is also the ceiling: 168 keyless and 720 on a developer plan. Asking for more returns the cap, and the payload says so in `capped`.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`coin`	No	The coin these hours belong to.
`note`	No	One line saying what the numbers cover, or why there are none. Read it before reporting any zero as a market reading.
`rows`	No	One row per recorded hour: the hour stamp, buy and sell dollars, and the CEX / on-chain / Hyperliquid split. The per-hour wallet list and per-exchange table are not carried here (see whale_profile and hl_whales for those); this tool is the hourly timeline.
`count`	No	How many hours carry a recorded reading. Fewer than hours means the rest were never recorded, not that they were quiet.
`hours`	No	How many hours back were read.
`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.
`summary`	No	The 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.
`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.
`depth_note`	No	How far back the data behind this answer reaches.
`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

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about it being 'descriptive market data only' and a rolling window, which is useful but not extensive. There is 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?

A single sentence conveys the core resource, granularity, coin scope, exchange split, and window type without waste. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to scan.

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?

Given the annotations, full parameter schema, and output schema, the description is largely complete for invoking the tool correctly. The main missing piece is explicit positioning relative to sibling tools, which is already penalized under usage guidelines.

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 main description does not need to explain parameters in detail. It does not add meaning beyond the schema, but the schema itself is thorough, including aliases, defaults, and the capped behavior.

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 identifies the resource: hourly buy/sell USD flow buckets for one coin, with CEX/DEX split and a rolling window. It is specific enough to convey what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling whale_* tools.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as whale_trades, whale_tape, or whale_radar. The description implies it is for one coin's hourly flow data, but it provides no exclusions or selection criteria.

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?