Skip to main content
Glama

DeltaSignal ATLAS-7

by io.github.aitrailblazer

ATLAS-7 explain signal

atlas7_explain_signal
Read-onlyIdempotent

Subscription-gated explanation of fields, evidence requirements, and SQL fingerprint without raw SQL.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sortNoOptional validated sort fields.
limitNoMaximum rows to return.
fieldsNoOptional allowlisted fields. Evidence fields are appended automatically.
intentNoAllowlisted semantic intent.
filtersNoOptional validated filters.
model_keyNoAllowlisted semantic model key.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: subscription gating and the explicit exclusion of raw SQL. It also enumerates the explanation contents, going beyond what annotations alone provide.

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?

The entire description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently captures the gating requirement, the output components, and a key boundary (no raw SQL).

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details are covered. The description provides the core purpose, access restriction, and a key non-disclosure constraint. However, the term 'signal' is ambiguous and the description does not indicate how to select a signal, though the schema hints through model_key and intent.

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%, so all six parameters are already documented. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the schema handles 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 clearly states the tool explains fields, evidence requirements, and SQL fingerprint, using a specific verb ('explain') and resource ('signal'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like atlas7_field_catalog or atlas7_evidence_lineage, which could overlap in purpose.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions 'subscription-gated', which is an access constraint rather than a usage guideline. No 'use when' or 'instead of' language is present.

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

All DeltaSignal ATLAS-7 toolsInspect
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

C2.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The tool set has extensive overlap: natural-language variants duplicate raw JSON tools (e.g., deltasignal_covenant_stress vs deltasignal_covenant_stress_natural), composite workflow tools duplicate low-level screens (deltasignal_alpha_sweep vs deltasignal_alpha_opportunities), and the atlas7_* and deltasignal_* prefixes repeat the same concepts (e.g., atlas7_covenant_stress vs deltasignal_covenant_stress). An agent would likely struggle to pick the right tool for a given intent.

Naming Consistency2/5

Three distinct prefixes (atlas7_, deltasignal_, strategix_) are used, and duplicate tool names appear across prefixes (e.g., atlas7_readiness vs deltasignal_readiness). Verb patterns are inconsistent, mixing nouns and verbs (atlas7_archive_search, deltasignal_thesis_create, deltasignal_morning_brief_natural), and there is no clear rule for raw, natural, composite, or resolver variants.

Tool Count1/5

With 81 tools, the server is massively over-scoped. Many are near-duplicates or overlapping composites; the core domain likely needs 20-30 tools at most. The count is far beyond what an agent can reasonably navigate, and it indicates a failure to consolidate or version the surface.

Completeness3/5

The set covers a broad range of functionality: screening, stress, alpha, peer comparison, history, tripcode resolution, synthetic ETF state, and thesis monitoring. However, there are lifecycle gaps (e.g., thesis_create has no corresponding update/delete, and the atlas7 vs deltasignal split leaves no unified surface). The duplication suggests comprehensive coverage in some areas and awkward holes in others.

Resources