Skip to main content
Glama

whale-insights

by com.cryptowhaleinsights

arbitrage_history

Historical arbitrage opportunities — top 5 per day (MCP-compatible) — Returns a daily history of the top 5 cross-exchange arbitrage opportunities detected by the platform. Each day entry lists the 5 highest-spread opportunities saved by the cron job, including token symbol, spread percentage, buy/sell exchanges, and average USD volume. Useful for AI agents answering questions like 'which tokens appear most frequently in arbitrage?' or 'what is the average daily spread?'. Data is accumulated daily; older than 180 days is automatically purged. Response: { days, history: [{date, opportunities: [{symbol, spreadPct, buyExchange, sellExchange, usdVolume}]}], total, updatedAt }. Query parameter: ?days=7 (default 7, max 180). No authentication required. 60 requests/min rate limit. 5-min in-process cache.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
daysNoNumber of days to look back (default 7, max 180).

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: data accumulation, 180-day purge, response structure, rate limit (60 req/min), and 5-min cache. It gives a complete picture of what the tool does and its constraints.

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?

The description is comprehensive yet well-organized: front-loaded with purpose, then response shape, usage examples, and operational details. Every sentence adds necessary information without 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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it defines the response format explicitly, explains data scope and freshness, and covers caching and rate limits. No gaps remain.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description. The description adds value by showing the exact query syntax (?days=7), explaining the default and max, and linking the parameter to the daily history returned.

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 it returns historical arbitrage opportunities (top 5 per day), specifies the data fields (token symbol, spread, exchanges, volume), and distinguishes from sibling 'arbitrage_monthly' by focusing on daily data.

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?

The description provides explicit context on when to use (e.g., answering questions about arbitrage patterns), mentions no authentication, and details the query parameter. It could be improved by stating when not to use (e.g., for real-time data or filtered queries).

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