Skip to main content
Glama

peerlytics

by xyz.peerlytics

get_analytics_summary

Investor summary metrics. Without params: cumulative MTD/QTD/YTD/all-time summary buckets. With from/to/range: returns a windowed { window, summary, composition, comparison } payload computed live from the indexer. Optional compare=prior_period|prior_year adds a delta block. Hard cap: 400-day window.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toNoWindow upper bound (exclusive). ISO-8601 or unix-seconds. Defaults to `now` when omitted but `from` is supplied.
fromNoWindow lower bound (inclusive). ISO-8601 (`2026-04-01T00:00:00Z`) or unix-seconds. Optional when `range` is supplied.
rangeNoUnified date-range shortcut shared across analytics + explorer endpoints. Hard cap: 400-day window. When set, takes precedence over `from`/`to`. Legacy values (`3mtd`, `q1`-`q4`, `custom`) were retired on 2026-04-30; use the explicit shortcuts below.
compareNoAdds a `comparison` block computed against the prior period (same length, immediately preceding) or the prior year (shifted back 365 days).

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description fully bears the burden. It discloses that data is 'computed live from the indexer', describes the return payload structure, and mentions the cap. It does not discuss authentication or side effects, but the tool likely has no destructive behavior.

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?

Three sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states purpose; the second details optional parameter behavior; the third adds constraints. Every sentence is essential and well-ordered.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It explains the return shape and the cap. It could elaborate further on the 'composition' and 'comparison' blocks, but the information provided is sufficient for correct usage.

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%, and the description adds value beyond the schema by explaining default behavior for 'to' and 'from', precedence of 'range' over 'from'/'to', and the effect of 'compare'. It also clarifies the hard cap applies to 'range' and legacy values.

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 specifies the tool provides 'investor summary metrics' with clear differentiation between parameterized and non-parameterized usage. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., get_market_summary, get_timeseries) by focusing on aggregated summary metrics with optional comparison.

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 explains when to use without parameters (cumulative buckets) and with parameters (windowed payload), and mentions the optional compare parameter. It also notes a hard cap (400-day window). However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All peerlytics 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

C2.8/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most get_* and list_* tools target distinct domain entities, but several high-level analytics endpoints overlap in purpose (get_analytics_summary, get_protocol_overview, get_market_summary, get_timeseries, get_leaderboard), and pairs like get_deposit/get_deposit_context and get_vault/get_vault_analytics create close boundaries. The descriptions clarify the differences, but an agent would need to read carefully to avoid misselection.

Naming Consistency5/5

The tool set follows a strong verb_noun pattern: get_ for single-entity or detail views, list_ for collections, plus explicit action endpoints like export_trade_log, plan_routes, and search_explorer. All names are snake_case and predictable, with no mixing of conventions.

Tool Count3/5

28 tools is on the heavy side for an MCP server, even for a broad analytics domain. Most tools map to real entities, but the surface is padded by overlapping summary/analytics endpoints and separate detail, context, and analytics variants for the same resources.

Completeness4/5

The server provides broad read-only coverage of the protocol domain: deposits, intents, makers, takers, vaults, delegates, verifiers, platforms, integrators, orderbook, routes, activity, and search. Minor gaps such as no list_vaults or list_integrators are workable via search/get endpoints, and mutating operations appear out of scope for an analytics-focused server.

Resources