whale-insights

analysts_signals

Analyst signal history — single or multi-analyst (public, free-tier, MCP-compatible) — Returns the last 7 days of signals for one or more analysts in a single request. Pass a single id (e.g. ?id=chain_hawk) for one analyst or a comma-separated list (e.g. ?id=chain_hawk,whale_watch) to compare multiple analysts without extra round-trips. Analyst ids: chain_hawk (ChainHawk, BTC & macro), whale_watch (WhaleWatch, multi-chain whales), alpha_scout (AlphaScout, emerging tokens), defi_pulse (DeFiPulse, DeFi/stables/bridges), quant_edge (QuantEdge, signal risk/convergence). Always free-tier depth (last 7 days, up to 200 signals per analyst). No authentication required. Single-id response: { analystId, tier, signals[], updatedAt }. Multi-id response (comma-separated): { results: { [analystId]: signals[] }, tier, updatedAt }. To fetch all 10 analysts at once, use GET /api/public/analysts/signals/all. Each signal: id (number), tokens (array), typeLabel, outcome ('win'|'loss'|null), returnPct (null if unresolved), create

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Analyst slug(s). Single: chain_hawk. Comma-separated for multi: chain_hawk,whale_watch. Valid values: chain_hawk, whale_watch, alpha_scout, defi_pulse, quant_edge.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Fully describes constraints: public/free-tier, always last 7 days, up to 200 signals per analyst, no authentication. Also details response formats for both single and multi-ID requests. No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and meets it.

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 comprehensive but slightly verbose; every sentence adds value. Front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then details. Minor redundancy in listing analyst IDs both inline and in response format.

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 output schema, the description thoroughly explains the response structure for both single and multi-ID cases, including the signal fields. It also mentions limits and alternative endpoints, covering all necessary context.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single 'id' parameter, and the description adds valid analyst slugs and explains comma-separated usage, enriching beyond the schema's basic description.

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 clearly states the tool returns analyst signal history for the last 7 days, supporting single or multiple analysts via comma-separated IDs. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like analysts_signals_all (which fetches all 10 analysts at once).

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?

Explicitly explains when to use single vs. comma-separated IDs, and directs to an alternative (GET /api/public/analysts/signals/all) for fetching all analysts. No ambiguity about usage context.

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

All whale-insights 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

A3.8/5.0

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

Need Help?