Sentinel Aleph

Vetoed signals

get_vetoed_signals

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists signals the BTC regime veto cancelled in the last 7 days, newest first, with the veto reason, the BTC state that triggered it, and, once scored, how the position actually closed (exit_type, pnl_percent): at the veto price, or at its target or stop if one was reached first. It is not what the signal would have done without the veto. Use it to audit the veto; these signals never appear in get_open_signals and never count in get_signal_ledger's win rate. symbol filters before limit; a symbol outside the scanned universe returns an error. No key needed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Maximum rows returned.
`symbol`	No	Only this pair. Must be in the scanned universe.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No	How to read the rows.
`count`	No	Rows returned.
`error`	No	Set only on a failed call (isError true): what went wrong.
`window`	No	Look-back window (7d).
`signals`	No	Vetoed signals, newest first.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 30, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / signals / items / properties / exit_type / description

Previous value: -"What it would have done, once scored; absent before."New value: +"How the position closed, once scored (invalidated = at the veto price); absent before."

changedOutput schema / properties / signals / items / properties / pnl_percent / description

Previous value: -"Would-have-been result, percent, once scored."New value: +"Result at that close, percent, once scored."

Changed1 schema field changedSep 28, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "count": {
+      "description": "Rows returned.",
+      "type": [
+        "integer",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "error": {
+      "description": "Set only on a failed call (isError true): what went wrong.",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "note": {
+      "description": "How to read the rows.",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "signals": {
+      "description": "Vetoed signals, newest first.",
+      "items": {
+        "description": "A signal plus its veto.",
+        "properties": {
+          "created_at": {
+            "description": "Published at (RFC 3339).",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "direction": {
+            "description": "long or short.",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "entry": {
+            "description": "Entry price.",
+            "type": [
+              "number",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "exit_type": {
+            "description": "What it would have done, once scored; absent before.",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "id": {
+            "description": "Signal id.",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "pnl_percent": {
+            "description": "Would-have-been result, percent, once scored.",
+            "type": [
+              "number",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "stop_loss": {
+            "description": "Stop-loss price.",
+            "type": [
+              "number",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "symbol": {
+            "description": "Pair.",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "take_profit": {
+            "description": "Take-profit prices.",
+            "items": {
+              "description": "Price.",
+              "type": [
+                "number",
+                "null"
+              ]
+            },
+            "type": [
+              "array",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "veto_context": {
+            "description": "BTC state that triggered the veto: price, trend, strength, 1h change, trigger."
+          },
+          "veto_reason": {
+            "description": "Reason code, e.g. btc_regime_turn_bullish.",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "vetoed_at": {
+            "description": "Cancelled at (RFC 3339).",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "window": {
+      "description": "Look-back window (7d).",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the 7-day window, newest-first ordering, what fields are returned (veto reason, BTC state, exit_type, pnl_percent), how pnl is computed (at veto price or target/stop if reached), and that no key is needed. It even clarifies what the metric is NOT (not the counterfactual of an unvetoed signal).

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and scope, and every clause carries information. It is a dense, slightly run-on sentence, but nothing is redundant filler; the parentheses around field names keep it tight.

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 0 required params, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: scope, ordering, routing to/away from siblings, error behavior, and auth. No gaps remain for correct invocation.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics: 'symbol filters before limit' documents the interaction/ordering of the two params, and it explains that a symbol outside the scanned universe returns an error. That goes beyond the schema's per-field descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists signals the BTC regime veto cancelled in the last 7 days') with ordering, and distinguishes itself from get_open_signals and get_signal_ledger by name. An agent can tell exactly what this returns without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit purpose ('Use it to audit the veto') and two explicit exclusions that route correctly: these signals never appear in get_open_signals and never count in get_signal_ledger's win rate. Also states the error condition for out-of-universe symbols.

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

All Sentinel Aleph 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?