sygnldata — market intelligence for trading agents

sygnl47_event_detail

Full detail for one SYGNL/47 event by id ($2.00).

RETURNS: the complete event — verbatim snippet (180-char cap), verification block (live vs replay, liveness reason, independent source count, consensus confidence) and market attribution (mark, benchmark, abnormal return by horizon). GUARANTEED MAX STALENESS: none — this serves events of any age including the newest, which is why it is priced at the live tier rather than the archive tier. PRICE: $2.00 USDC. An unknown event_id returns 404 and is NOT settled. NOT A PREDICTION: verified observation of a public statement. event_id example: sygnl47-20260727-192342-GM

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`event_id`	Yes
`payment_signature`	No

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations, but description discloses behavior: returns detailed structure, pricing, staleness guarantee, error handling (404), and nature (verified observation).

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?

Description is organized into labeled sections (RETURNS, GUARANTEED, PRICE, NOT A PREDICTION) and is concise while covering key details.

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

Completeness4/5

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

No output schema, but description fully explains return structure, pricing, and error handling. Adequate for a single-entity detail 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 0% so description must compensate. Provides example for event_id but does not explain payment_signature parameter, leaving ambiguity.

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?

Description clearly states 'Full detail for one SYGNL/47 event by id' with pricing. Distinguishes from sibling tools that list events.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explains pricing tier and that it serves events of any age. Mentions it is 'NOT A PREDICTION' and returns 404 for unknown IDs, but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like latest_event.

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

All sygnldata — market intelligence for trading agents 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

A3.7/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinct purpose, with clear differentiation between SYGNL/47 event tiers (live, 1m, 15m, archive), subscription management, and auxiliary tools like backtesting and regime detection. No overlapping functionality.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a descriptive underscore pattern, with 'sygnl47_' prefix for event and subscription tools, and 'get_' for data retrieval. Some variation in verb prefixes (audit, check, estimate) but overall predictable and readable.

Tool Count4/5

21 tools is slightly high but justified by the tiered data access model for SYGNL/47 events and supporting infrastructure. The count covers core functionality without being excessive.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the stated domain well: event monitoring at different recency, backtesting, regime detection, and subscription management. Minor gaps like historical pricing data are not central to the server's focus.

Resources

Need Help?