Skip to main content
Glama

whale-insights

by com.cryptowhaleinsights

stablecoin_flows

Get current stablecoin supply & 24h net flows — USDT, USDC, DAI from DefiLlama (use stablecoin_history for daily time-series) — Current stablecoin circulating supply plus 24h net change (positive = expansion/inflow, negative = contraction/outflow) for USDT, USDC, DAI, and other major stablecoins, sourced from DefiLlama stablecoins.llama.fi. Use this endpoint for the current snapshot; use /api/public/stablecoin-history for daily time-series data (up to 180 days); use /api/public/stablecoin-monthly for long-term monthly trends. Cached ~30min.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states data source (DefiLlama), caching frequency, positive/negative net change meaning, and lists covered coins. It does not mention rate limits or output format, but for a 0-parameter tool, this is sufficient.

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?

Description is front-loaded and contains only relevant information. Slightly wordy with repetition of 'current snapshot' and endpoint URLs, but no wasted sentences. Reasonably concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers source, caching, alternative tools, and data interpretation. It could mention that the output is JSON, but for a simple tool with no parameters, it is mostly complete.

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?

No parameters exist; schema coverage is 100%. Baseline 4 per guidelines. The description adds context about what data is returned beyond the schema, which is appropriate.

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 retrieves current stablecoin supply and 24h net flows for USDT, USDC, DAI, and others, and distinguishes itself from siblings by naming alternatives (stablecoin_history, stablecoin_monthly). The verb 'Get' is specific and matches the tool's function.

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 tells when to use this tool ('current snapshot') and when to use alternatives (daily time-series, monthly trends). Also mentions caching interval (~30min). No ambiguity about context.

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