FormulaSignal

Explain signal

signals.explain

Read-onlyIdempotent

Explain one approved FormulaSignal Signal: a confirmed, reviewed change between two comparable product states.

When to use: Use when a product record or history response named a signal_id and you need the before state, the after state, the observation window, and the evidence.

What it cannot provide: It has no access to unreviewed candidates, review deliberation, or the internal review queue. A signal_id that is not approved returns not found.

Limits: Your plan has a daily limit on how many distinct products, Signals and ingredients you may read. Repeating a question about the same product costs nothing extra; reading many different products costs one each. Do not iterate through products, aliases, or date windows to assemble a copy of the Record: it is refused, scored, and can suspend the key.

FormulaSignal covers a defined, counted set of U.S. pre-workout products. Coverage is not the whole category, and a product being absent from coverage says nothing about that product. Every response carries a status. supported means the Record answered. partial, stale, under_review, ambiguous and unsupported are all real answers about the Record and none of them is a fact about the product: report them as what FormulaSignal holds, never as what is true of the product. Read limitations and repeat what applies. An observation date is when a source was read, not when a change was made, and an observation window is not an exact reformulation date. Nothing here is medical advice or a suitability judgement for any person.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`signal_id`	Yes	A Signal id, as named by a product record, a formula history, or signals.list.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`error`	No	Present only on a refusal: code, message, and what to do next.
`watch`	No	The bound account's watchlist or monitoring receipt.
`ledger`	No
`status`	Yes	What kind of answer this is. Every value except `supported` is still a real answer about the Record rather than a fact about the product.
`history`	No	Dated product states, oldest first.
`product`	No	The covered product the answer is about, when there is exactly one.
`signals`	No	Approved Signals: confirmed, reviewed changes.
`summary`	No	One sentence saying what kind of answer this is.
`coverage`	No
`products`	No	Covered products named by the answer.
`candidates`	No	Present when `status` is `ambiguous`. Pick one; never assume the first.
`capability`	Yes	The API capability that answered.
`comparison`	No
`confidence`	No
`disclaimer`	No
`request_id`	Yes	Quote this if you contact support.
`limitations`	No	Always present, including when empty. Read it and repeat what applies.
`next_cursor`	No	Pass back as `cursor` for the next page. Null on the last page.
`calculations`	No	Deterministic arithmetic FormulaSignal performed, with its operands.
`record_as_of`	No	The Record's as-of date, YYYY-MM-DD.
`record_version`	No	The Record data-state id. Two answers sharing it came from one committed state.
`verified_facts`	No	What a captured source literally declares.
`commercial_facts`	No	Dated commercial observations, each with its price basis.
`record_timestamp`	No	The newest dated observation the Record holds. Deliberately not "now".
`research_context`	No	Dose ranges from the selected evidence set, with citations.
`source_references`	No	Citations a reader can open: publisher, URL, observation date.
`regulatory_records`	No	Filings and records, each labelled with the class of record it is.
`documented_cautions`	No	Documented cautions, kept apart from filings.
`methodology_version`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedSep 27, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint). It explains that only approved signals are accessible, that unapproved ones return not found, daily reading limits, consequences of iterating (refused, scored, can suspend the key), and the meaning of status values (supported, partial, stale, under_review, ambiguous, unsupported). It also clarifies that observation dates and windows are not exact reformulation dates. This is rich behavioral context that annotations cannot convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is quite long but well-structured with clear paragraphs: definition, when to use, what it cannot provide, limits, coverage, statuses, observation date, and disclaimer. Key information is front-loaded. However, some repetition exists (e.g., the point that statuses are not facts about the product is made twice), and the length might be trimmed without losing meaning. Still, each paragraph earns its place, so a 4 is appropriate.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's complexity and the existence of an output schema (which handles return structure), the description covers all necessary context: purpose, usage, limitations, status interpretation, date semantics, coverage, and disclaimers. There are no obvious gaps that would prevent an agent from using the tool correctly. The description even addresses edge cases like partial, stale, and unsupported statuses, which is essential for proper interpretation.

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?

The schema already defines signal_id as 'A Signal id, as named by a product record, a formula history, or signals.list.' The description adds that only approved signals are valid and that non-approved returns not found, which is additional behavioral context. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, but the description enriches the parameter's meaning by tying it to the approval status and source locations, earning a 4.

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 first sentence defines the tool precisely: 'Explain one approved FormulaSignal Signal: a confirmed, reviewed change between two comparable product states.' It uses a specific verb (explain) and resource (approved FormulaSignal Signal), and describes the output as the before state, after state, observation window, and evidence. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like signals.list (listing) and signals.snapshot (snapshot), even though it doesn't name them explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description includes an explicit 'When to use' paragraph: 'Use when a product record or history response named a signal_id and you need the before state, the after state, the observation window, and the evidence.' It also states what it cannot provide (unreviewed candidates, review deliberation, internal review queue) and that non-approved signals return not found. This gives clear guidance on when to use the tool versus alternatives, even if it doesn't name the alternatives explicitly.

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

All FormulaSignal tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?