Get live activity counters — whale moves today, smart-money wallets active, golden alerts (10s cache) — Live activity snapshot for the platform (real recent counts, no fabricated floors). Cached ~10s. Response includes meta.updatedAt and meta.cacheAgeSeconds (derived from the underlying whale-copy-signals cache timestamp; 0 when the cache is cold).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, but description discloses caching duration, response fields (meta.updatedAt, meta.cacheAgeSeconds), and cache cold indicator. Adds meaningful behavioral context beyond a simple description.
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?
Three efficient sentences: first lists output contents, second clarifies caching, third details response meta fields. No redundant text.
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?
Cover all key aspects: output contents, caching, and important meta fields. Lacks explicit mention of time range ('today' implied) and exact structure of counts, but sufficient for a parameterless tool.
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?
Schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage. Baseline is 4 for no parameters; description doesn't need to add param info. It adds value by explaining what the tool returns.
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?
Clearly states it retrieves live activity counters for whale moves, smart-money wallets active, and golden alerts. Differentiates from sibling tools by specifying its real-time snapshot nature.
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?
Describes caching behavior (≈10s) and indicator of recency ('no fabricated floors'). Provides context for real-time use but does not explicitly mention when to avoid or suggest alternatives.
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.