Skip to main content
Glama

whale-insights

by com.cryptowhaleinsights

analyst_monthly_performance

Monthly performance summary for all analysts (last 6 months) — Returns win_rate, avg_return, and total_signals per analyst per calendar month for exactly the last 6 calendar months (current month + 5 prior full months, enforced with DATE_TRUNC('month') boundaries — never more than 6 month buckets). All 10 canonical analysts (chain_hawk, whale_watch, alpha_scout, defi_pulse, quant_edge, rate_hawk, flow_tracer, unlock_guard, sentiment_edge, narrative_pulse) are always present in the response with an empty array [] when they have no signals in the window. Data is computed directly from the signal_history PostgreSQL table — no separate snapshot table required. winRate is a fraction (0–1, e.g. 0.71 = 71%) and is null when fewer than 5 resolved signals exist for that month. avgReturn is in percentage points (e.g. 12.3 = +12.3% average return) and is null when no resolved+priced signals exist for that month. Useful for AI agents answering 'How did WhaleWatch perform in May?' or 'Who was the best analyst last month?'

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Describes time window enforcement, data source (signal_history table), handling of missing analysts (empty array), and null conditions for win_rate and avg_return. No contradictions.

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?

Well-structured with front-loaded purpose and detailed behavior. Slightly verbose but every sentence is informative.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers input, output shape, constraints, and edge cases. Complete for a query tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

No parameters, so baseline is 4. Description adds significant value beyond the empty schema: explains fixed time range, mandatory analyst list, and null behavior.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('returns') and clear resource ('monthly performance summary for all analysts'). Distinguishes from sibling tools like analyst_daily_summary by specifying monthly aggregation over exactly 6 months.

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?

Provides explicit use cases ('How did WhaleWatch perform in May?' or 'Who was the best analyst last month?'). Does not explicitly list when not to use or compare to siblings, but context is clear.

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

All whale-insights 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but there are a few pairs with overlapping boundaries (e.g., analysts_signals vs analysts_signals_all, whale_movements vs whale_movements_summary) that could cause minor confusion.

Naming Consistency4/5

Naming is predominantly snake_case and descriptive, with minor inconsistencies in plural/singular forms (e.g., 'analysts' vs 'analyst_archive'). Overall pattern is stable.

Tool Count2/5

With 55 tools, the server is quite heavy. While the scope is broad, many tools are history/monthly variants that could be combined, making the count feel inflated beyond what is ideal for a single server.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of crypto analytics domains (analysts, arbitrage, funding, whales, sentiment, etc.). Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct token price endpoint), but overall it's a comprehensive surface.

Resources