Hesper Atlas Evidence

Closed signals

list_closed_trades

Read-onlyIdempotent

The raw closed-signal historical replay, newest exit first, filterable by symbol and exit date. Winners and losers both; nothing is excluded from the replay. Signal data, not investment advice.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Rows to return, default 50, max 200.
`since`	No	Only exits on or after this date (YYYY-MM-DD).
`offset`	No	Rows to skip, for paging.
`symbol`	No	Only this ticker.

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

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already convey readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive intent. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the ordering ('newest exit first'), the exhaustive inclusion ('Winners and loserrs both; nothing is excluded'), and the advisory disclaimer ('Signal data, not investment advice').

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 short sentences, each earning its place: core resource and ordering are front-loaded, filtering is stated concisely, and the disclaimer is tucked at the end. No filler or redundant restating of the name.

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 output schema exists and annotations cover safety/idempotency, the description supplies the missing behavioral context: raw replay nature, ordering, filterability, and inclusion of all outcomes. An agent has enough to call the tool correctly without missing key semantics.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter already described. The description only loosely maps to symbol and exit-date filtering, adding little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies a specific resource ('closed-signal historical replay') and concrete behaviors: newest exit first, filterable by symbol and exit date, and inclusive of winners/losers. It is unambiguous but does not explicitly contrast a sibling tool such as list_signals, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives is provided. The phrase 'historical replay' implies a retrospective purpose, but the description never says when to choose this tool over list_signals, get_signal, or other sibling tools.

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?