Skip to main content
Glama

peerlytics

by xyz.peerlytics

get_protocol_overview

Investor diligence overview. Investor-focused protocol diligence payload. Pass a range shortcut for cached buckets (mtd/ytd/all) or a non-default shortcut (last_7d, qtd, ..) for a live windowed compute. Includes growth, throughput, liquidity quality, concentration, and protocol mix.

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.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that certain ranges use cached buckets while others trigger live compute, which is useful. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling 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 wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, the second explains parameter usage, and the third lists content. Front-loaded and efficient.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Input parameters are well explained given their optionality, but with no output schema, the description only vaguely mentions included metrics. It lacks details on the response structure, pagination, or bounding of the window. Adequate but incomplete.

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%, but the description adds value by explaining that `range` takes precedence over `from`/`to`, default behavior of `to`, and that legacy enum values were retired. This goes beyond what the JSON Schema provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states the tool provides an investor-focused protocol diligence overview and lists included metrics (growth, throughput, liquidity quality, etc.). However, it could be more specific about how this overview differs from other summary tools among siblings like get_analytics_summary.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Description explains the use of `range` shortcuts for cached vs live compute, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like get_analytics_summary or get_market_summary. No alternatives or exclusions mentioned.

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