Hesper Atlas Evidence

Per-symbol history

get_symbol_record

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use when a user asks how Hesper Atlas's current rules historically behaved on one ticker. Returns every closed round trip produced on one ticker (entry date, entry price, exit date, exit price, return, days held), plus its open position if it currently has one. This is retrospective history, not a forward record or current recommendation: use get_signal for the latest end-of-day state. Signal data, not investment advice.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`symbol`	Yes	Ticker symbol, e.g. NVDA. Case-insensitive.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`as_of`	No
`source`	No
`caveats`	No
`is_live`	No
`citation`	No
`data_type`	No
`disclaimer`	Yes
`provenance`	No
`source_url`	No
`last_updated`	No
`calculation_version`	No
`methodology_version`	No

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavior context: it returns closed round trips with specific fields, may include an open position, and explicitly states the data is retrospective and not investment advice. This adds meaningful transparency beyond the annotations.

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 fluff: usage trigger, return payload, and exclusion/alternative are each front-loaded and purposeful. The structure guides the agent from when to use to what to expect in a compact format.

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?

The tool is simple (one required parameter) and has an output schema, so return values need no elaboration. The description explains the use case, the data returned, the open-position nuance, and the correct sibling alternative. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the symbol parameter already documented as a ticker symbol, example, and case-insensitive. The description reinforces 'one ticker' but does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. A baseline of 3 is appropriate given the complete schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns per-ticker historical behavior of Hesper Atlas's rules. It clearly specifies the scope (one ticker) and the output (closed round trips plus an open position), distinguishing it from forward-looking or recommendation tools.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool ('when a user asks how Hesper Atlas's current rules historically behaved on one ticker') and directs the user to get_signal for the latest end-of-day state. It also warns that this is retrospective history, not a forward record or current recommendation, giving clear routing guidance.

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

All Hesper Atlas Evidence 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

A4/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

The five historical-performance tools (get_track_record, get_walk_forward_evidence, get_heldout_evidence, get_ledger_stats, list_closed_trades) occupy heavily overlapping territory, and an agent could easily grab the wrong evidence artifact. The detailed 'use when' openers help considerably, but the boundaries between replay, walk-forward, and validation are subtle enough that misselection risk remains real.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tools follow a clean snake_case verb_noun pattern, with get_ reserved for single artifacts/reports and list_ for enumerable collections. The convention is slightly loose—get_changes_since and get_ledger_stats are more list-like than get_-like, and the verbs don't always signal collection size—but overall the pattern is predictable and readable.

Tool Count4/5

At 15 tools, the server sits at the upper boundary of a well-scoped surface, and each tool does earn its place in the evidence ecosystem (current signal, lists, portfolio, context, diffs, publications, replay, validation, methodology, provenance). It is slightly heavy and could feel daunting, but nothing is redundant.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the evidence domain thoroughly: current state, forward publication history, performance replays, two distinct validation artifacts, methodology, and hash-level provenance. Minor gaps exist—there is no tool to enumerate the full covered universe or search across tickers, forcing users to arrive with a symbol in mind—but core workflows have no dead ends.

Resources

Need Help?