Skip to main content
Glama

whale-insights

by com.cryptowhaleinsights

analysts_signals_all

All analysts' signal history in one request (public, free-tier, MCP-compatible) — Returns the last 7 days of signals for all 10 analysts grouped by analystId in a single response — ideal for AI agents that need a cross-analyst comparison without 10 round-trips. Analyst ids in the response: 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. No query parameters needed. Response: { results: { [analystId]: signals[] }, tier: 'free', updatedAt }. Each signal: id (number), tokens (array), typeLabel, outcome ('win'|'loss'|null), returnPct (null if unresolved), createdAt (ISO-8601), analystId. To fetch a subset of analysts, use GET /api/public/analysts/signals?id=chain_hawk,whale_watch.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations provided, so description fully bears the burden. It discloses free-tier limits (last 7 days, 200 signals per analyst), no authentication required, no query parameters, and the exact response shape. 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

Description is comprehensive yet efficient. Every sentence serves a clear purpose: stating capability, ideal use case, analyst IDs, constraints, and response format. No redundancy.

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 explains the response structure (results, tier, updatedAt) and signal fields (id, tokens, typeLabel, etc.). An AI agent can confidently invoke and parse the result.

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 input parameters exist; schema coverage is 100% vacuously. The description adds all meaning by explaining the endpoint's behavior and response structure, which the empty schema does not provide.

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 all analysts' signal history in one request, distinguishing it from sibling tools like analysts_signals that likely fetch a single analyst. The verb 'returns' is specific.

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 states when to use: for cross-analyst comparison without multiple round-trips. Also provides an alternative for subset fetching: use analysts_signals with ids. Clear guidance.

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