Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Anomaly Tracker MCP

Anomaly Tracker MCP

by forgemeshlabs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

whale_alerts

Monitor whale transactions, CEX inflows/outflows, bridge activity, and stablecoin mints/burns to spot market-moving events and anomalies.

Instructions

Get recent whale movements, CEX inflows/outflows, bridge activity, and stablecoin mints/burns from monitored addresses (Binance, Coinbase, Kraken, OKX, Bybit, major bridges, Tether, Circle). Costs $0.02 USDC on Base mainnet.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "whale_alerts"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainNoBlockchain to monitor (default: ethereum)
hoursNoLookback window in hours, 1-168 (default: 4)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.0.1

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description fully discloses that the tool costs $0.02 USDC on Base mainnet and lists monitored addresses. This provides key behavioral context beyond a simple read operation, though rate limits or response details are omitted.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action ("Get recent whale movements..."), and no wasted words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description lacks details on return format, pagination, or result count. It adequately covers input and cost but not output, leaving gaps for a data retrieval tool.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds no extra meaning to parameters beyond what is already in the schema. The description itself does not elaborate on parameter usage.

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 explicitly states the tool retrieves whale movements, CEX flows, bridge activity, and stablecoin actions, listing monitored addresses. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like address_scan or token_scan, which focus on different data.

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 mentions a cost and data sources but does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. The context of siblings implies differentiation, but explicit guidance is missing.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools