peerlytics

get_taker_history

Taker history metrics. Same window/pagination semantics as /api/v1/makers/{address}/history. Within a window intents.{total,fulfilled,pruned,volume_usd} reflect the period only; cumulative responses fall back to lifetime TakerStats.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	No	Window upper bound (exclusive). ISO-8601 or unix-seconds. Defaults to `now` when omitted but `from` is supplied.
`from`	No	Window lower bound (inclusive). ISO-8601 (`2026-04-01T00:00:00Z`) or unix-seconds. Optional when `range` is supplied.
`limit`	No	Max number of results to return.
`range`	No	Unified 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.
`cursor`	No	Pass the previous page's `next_cursor` to walk forward without offset drift. This is the supported pagination path on every list endpoint.
`offset`	No	Deprecated. Use `cursor` instead — offset pagination is fragile under concurrent writes and slow at scale. Still accepted for backwards compatibility while integrators migrate.
`address`	Yes

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

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 discloses that within a window, intents fields reflect only the period and cumulative responses fall back to lifetime stats. It also explains the range parameter precedence and deprecation of offset. However, it does not mention rate limits, authentication, or whether the tool is read-only.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and then elaborating on key behavioral detail. Every sentence adds value, with no filler.

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?

Given the complexity (7 parameters, window semantics, deprecation), the description covers essential behavioral aspects but lacks detail on return format (no output schema) and the meaning of 'lifetime TakerStats.' The reference to maker history assumes prior knowledge of that endpoint's pagination.

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 high (86%), so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the order of precedence for range vs from/to, the use of cursor for pagination, and the deprecation of offset. This helps the agent understand how parameters interact.

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 provides 'taker history metrics' and explains the window/pagination semantics by referencing the maker history endpoint. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_maker_history by explicitly naming the similar but different endpoint.

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?

The description references the maker history endpoint for similar semantics but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like get_taker or get_analytics_summary. It lacks guidance on when not to use it or clear alternatives beyond the maker reference.

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

All peerlytics 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

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

Need Help?