atlas7_portfolio_watchlistSubscription-gated saved watchlist analysis. MVP accepts ticker or CIK filters until watchlist persistence is enabled.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cik | No | Issuer CIK when ticker is not supplied. | |
| limit | No | Maximum rows to return. | |
| ticker | No | Issuer ticker, for example IREN. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, providing a safe read profile. The description adds 'Subscription-gated' (access control) and clarifies MVP limitations, which is valuable context beyond annotations. No contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences: one states the core function and access constraint, the second states the MVP limitation. Zero waste, front-loaded with the key phrase 'Subscription-gated saved watchlist analysis.'
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a simple parameter set (3 optional), full schema description, comprehensive annotations, and an output schema. The description covers the unique access gate and current limitation, which is complete for an agent to decide when to invoke it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds that ticker and CIK are filters and that no parameters are required (implied by 'accepts ticker or CIK filters'), reinforcing the optionality. It doesn't add syntax details but doesn't need to given full schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Subscription-gated saved watchlist analysis' uses a specific verb ('analysis') and resource ('saved watchlist'), and distinguishes from siblings by noting the subscription gate. However, it doesn't explicitly say what analysis is performed or how it differs from 'quick_ticker_check' or 'signal_board'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description notes 'MVP accepts ticker or CIK filters until watchlist persistence is enabled,' which offers context for when this tool is usable and the current limitation. It does not name alternatives or explicitly state when-not-to-use, but sibling names and context signals suggest it is a specialized watchlist tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
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.
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.