Skip to main content
Glama

DeltaSignal ATLAS-7

by io.github.aitrailblazer

DeltaSignal alpha signals

deltasignal_alpha_signals
Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this read-only tool to retrieve DeltaSignal ATLAS-7 alpha signals for one crypto public company ticker. It returns issuer-level signal evidence such as resilience, treasury pressure, regime fit, phase-one opportunity indicators, and the active source date used by the DeltaSignal data plane. Use it for research triage on supported public-company tickers such as COIN, MSTR, MARA, RIOT, HUT, and CLSK; do not pass crypto asset symbols unless they are listed public-company tickers. Parameters: ticker is required and normalized to uppercase; source_date is optional YYYY-MM-DD and should be used only to replay a known historical DeltaSignal slice. Behavior: read-only and idempotent; it performs one HTTPS read, has no destructive side effects, does not trade, does not store user data, and does not handle wallet secrets. Usage guidelines: call readiness first if you need service freshness, use covenant_stress for covenant-only questions, use company_fundamentals for raw SEC XBRL facts, and treat the result as issuer intelligence rather than investment advice.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tickerYesRequired crypto public company ticker symbol. The server normalizes it to uppercase. Good examples: COIN, MSTR, MARA, RIOT, HUT, CLSK. Do not use asset symbols like BTC or ETH unless they are also public-company tickers.
source_dateNoOptional DeltaSignal source slice date in YYYY-MM-DD format. Omit this for the latest active slice; set it only when reproducing a prior dated run.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesAlpha-signal research result for one crypto public company. Scores are issuer-level DeltaSignal values from 0 to 100 when present.
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?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints, but the description adds valuable context beyond those: 'performs one HTTPS read, has no destructive side effects, does not trade, does not store user data, and does not handle wallet secrets.' It also clarifies the source_date behavior (replay-only), which is not implied by the schema alone.

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 four sentences, each earning its place. It front-loads the main purpose, then compactly covers parameters, behavior, and usage guidelines. No filler or redundancy beyond minimal necessary restatement of annotations.

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 the tool has an output schema and strong annotations, the description still provides a thorough summary of return contents (resilience, treasury pressure, regime fit, phase-one indicators, source date), clear usage boundaries, and alternative tool references. An agent has all information needed to select and invoke it correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds slight nuance (e.g., source_date is for replaying a known slice), but the schema already covers normalization, format, examples, and the asset-symbol caution. No additional semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'retrieve DeltaSignal ATLAS-7 alpha signals for one crypto public company ticker.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming alternatives (covenant_stress, company_fundamentals) and specifying the target tickers (COIN, MSTR, etc.).

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use it for research triage on supported public-company tickers' and 'do not pass crypto asset symbols unless they are listed public-company tickers.' It also states when to use alternatives: 'call readiness first if you need service freshness, use covenant_stress for covenant-only questions, use company_fundamentals for raw SEC XBRL facts.'

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