Skip to main content
Glama

DeltaSignal ATLAS-7

by io.github.aitrailblazer

DeltaSignal alpha opportunities

deltasignal_alpha_opportunities
Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this read-only screening tool to rank the active DeltaSignal issuer universe by deterministic Phase 1 alpha score. It returns opportunity rows with ticker, CIK/entity metadata when available, issuer type, raw alpha score, board rank score, risk tier, debt coverage, quality, treasury, regime, and provenance fields. Parameters: limit is 1-100; source_date replays a known YYYY-MM-DD slice; risk_tier, quality_flag, issuer_type, include_funds, and debt_coverage_status narrow the screen. Behavior: read-only and idempotent; it performs one HTTPS read, has no destructive side effects, and does not handle wallets, payments, orders, or account state. Default behavior returns operating-company issuers. Use include_funds=true or issuer_type=etf_trust|fund_vehicle|all only when the user asks for ETF, trust, fund, or product-vehicle screens. High scores are drilldown candidates, not standalone conclusions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum rows to return. Use 10-25 for agent summaries and up to 100 for full screening.
risk_tierNoOptional risk tier filter such as HIGH, MODERATE, LOW, or UNCLASSIFIED.
issuer_typeNoOptional issuer-type filter: operating_company, etf_trust, fund_vehicle, foreign_issuer, unresolved_identifier, or all.
source_dateNoOptional DeltaSignal source slice date in YYYY-MM-DD format.
quality_flagNoOptional normalized quality filter such as high, medium, low, or unknown.
include_fundsNoSet true to include ETF, trust, fund, and product-vehicle rows in the screen.
debt_coverage_statusNoOptional debt coverage filter such as resolved_nonzero, legitimate_zero_debt, or low_confidence_missing_debt.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesRanked Phase 1 alpha-opportunity screen for the active DeltaSignal issuer universe. The default screen focuses on operating-company issuers and requires issuer drilldown; ETF/trust/fund/product vehicles require explicit opt-in.
provenanceYesTraceability information for the MCP tool response.
mcp_summaryYesConcise high-signal summary of the tool response. Maximum 140 characters.
usage_metadataNoPerformance and estimated cost metadata for this MCP tool call.
suggested_follow_upsYesConcrete next MCP calls an agent can run to continue the workflow.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Even though annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, the description adds beyond that: it states the tool performs one HTTPS read, has no destructive side effects, and does not handle wallets, payments, orders, or account state. It also notes deterministic scoring and default operating-company behavior, which gives the agent a complete safety and side-effect picture.

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 description is dense but well-organized, with clear labels ('Parameters:', 'Behavior:') and front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds distinct information: purpose, return fields, parameter semantics, safety behavior, and usage caveats. Despite being longer than a typical description, no sentence is wasted and it remains scannable.

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?

For a 7-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what the tool does, what it returns, how to use each parameter, the default behavior, side-effect profile, and interpretation guidance. The output schema handles return structure, so the description's field list is a bonus reinforcement. It is complete for its complexity.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by summarizing the parameters in a compact way ('limit is 1-100; source_date replays a known YYYY-MM-DD slice; risk_tier... narrow the screen') and clarifies default behavior (operating-company issuers, and when to use include_funds or issuer_type). This is more than just redundant paraphrasing, so a 4 is warranted.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: screening and ranking the DeltaSignal issuer universe by alpha score. It specifies the verb (rank), resource (active issuer universe), and scope (read-only, Phase 1 alpha score), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like alpha_signals or alpha_sweep by focusing on opportunity screening and explicitly listing the output fields.

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?

The description provides clear usage context: when to include funds (only when the user asks for ETF, trust, fund, or product-vehicle screens) and how to interpret high scores (drilldown candidates, not standalone conclusions). It does not explicitly name alternative tools for exclusions, but the 'only when' language gives strong directional guidance. This is clear context without explicit sibling alternatives.

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