Get recent large cross-chain bridge transfers — Stargate Finance, Socket/Bungee via LI.FI (top 3 free; capital-rotation signal) — Recent large cross-chain bridge transfers and per-bridge volume summaries sourced from LI.FI. Free preview: top 3 flows + 2 bridge summaries; the full flow history requires a Weekly Alpha subscription. Cached ~10min.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description covers behavioral traits: mentions caching (10min), free preview limits, and capital-rotation signal. Does not explicitly state authentication or rate limits, but given no annotations, this is fairly transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is somewhat repetitive, stating 'Recent large cross-chain bridge transfers' twice. It could be more concise. However, it is well-structured with clarifying clauses.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, so description should explain return values. It mentions 'top 3 flows + 2 bridge summaries' and volume summaries, but lacks detail on the structure or fields. Adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Description adds value by explaining what data is returned without parameters. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and description fulfills it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool's purpose: retrieving recent large cross-chain bridge transfers, specifically mentioning Stargate Finance and Socket/Bungee via LI.FI. It distinguishes from siblings like bridge_flow_history by focusing on recent data and free preview limits.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implied usage for recent cross-chain bridge analysis, but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like bridge_flow_history or stablecoin_flows. The subscription limit is mentioned, but not when to choose another tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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 is predominantly snake_case and descriptive, with minor inconsistencies in plural/singular forms (e.g., 'analysts' vs 'analyst_archive'). Overall pattern is stable.
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.
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.