whale-insights

funding_rate_monthly

Funding rate permanent monthly archive — Returns the permanent monthly archive of perpetual funding rates per token — one row per token per calendar month, aggregated from daily snapshots before purge. Never deleted; covers the top 10 tokens by volume. Optional ?symbol=BTC to filter. Each row includes: month, symbol, avgRate, minRate, maxRate, dominantSentiment (bullish/neutral/bearish based on avg rate), daysInMonth. Months with fewer than 20 daily records are excluded. No authentication required. 60 req/min. 5-min cache.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`symbol`	No	Token symbol to filter by (e.g. BTC, ETH). Omit to return all top-10 tokens.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses key behaviors: the data is never deleted, covers only top 10 tokens, excludes months with fewer than 20 records, and includes rate limits and caching. This is thorough given no annotations are provided.

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 well-structured and informative, with each sentence adding value. It could be slightly more concise, but it remains clear and front-loads the core purpose.

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 the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains the return fields, filtering behavior, exclusions, authentication, rate limits, and caching, covering all necessary context.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% for the only parameter 'symbol', so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal new information about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides (just repeating the filter example).

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 a permanent monthly archive of perpetual funding rates per token, aggregated from daily snapshots. It distinguishes from sibling tools like funding_rates and funding_rates_history by emphasizing the monthly aggregation and permanent storage.

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 implicitly indicates usage by describing the data scope (monthly archive, top 10 tokens) and optional filtering. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives, leaving room for ambiguity.

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?