Skip to main content
Glama

peerlytics

by xyz.peerlytics

get_vault_analytics

Vault and delegated liquidity overview. Without params: cumulative rate-manager analytics including delegated AUM, delegation adoption, fee volume, daily AUM/fee series, and per-vault summaries. With from/to/range: per-vault rollup (fees_earned_usd, volume_routed_usd, aum_change_usd, delegator_change) computed from daily snapshots inside the window. Supports API key auth and x402.

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the two behavioral modes, parameter precedence (range over from/to), and output fields for each mode. This is transparent and accurate.

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 with clear structure: first sentence states general purpose, second sentence details parameter-specific behaviors. No wasted words.

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?

Without an output schema, the description adequately describes return values for both modes, listing specific fields. It covers the main use cases, though could mention pagination or limits if any exist.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant meaning: explains default values, precedence rules, output fields per parameter combination, and format details. This goes well beyond the schema.

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 'Vault and delegated liquidity overview' and distinguishes two modes: cumulative analytics without parameters and per-vault rollups with time parameters. This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_vault, get_analytics_summary, and others.

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 each parameter configuration (without params vs. with from/to/range) and notes authentication support. It doesn't explicitly direct to alternatives but the context is clear.

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