Skip to main content
Glama

DeltaSignal ATLAS-7

by io.github.aitrailblazer

DeltaSignal ATLAS-7 complete calculation history

deltasignal_atlas7_calculation_history
Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this read-only tool when agents need the complete ATLAS-7 calculation bundle for an issuer and source_date. It assembles one calculation-history row from the existing ATLAS-7 precomputed surfaces: covenant stress, company fundamentals, peer ranking, alpha signals, alpha score breakdown, market regime context, SPECTRA inputs, quality flags, provenance, source fields, and hashes. Parameters: source_date replays one YYYY-MM-DD ATLAS-7 slice; source_date_from/source_date_to can page recent slices; ticker or CIK narrows to one issuer; mode=compact by default and full includes source_fields_json. Behavior: read-only and idempotent; it has no destructive side effects and performs no wallet, settlement, or trading actions. Use this before historical report rendering so agents do not mix latest-only fields into a historical answer.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cikNoOptional CIK filter. Bare digits or CIK-prefixed digits are accepted.
modeNoOptional response mode: compact or full. Compact omits source_fields_json.
limitNoMaximum calculation rows to return. Defaults to 25 and is capped at 100 through MCP.
offsetNoPagination offset over calculation rows.
tickerNoOptional issuer ticker, for example MSTR.
source_dateNoOptional exact ATLAS-7 source date in YYYY-MM-DD format. Defaults to latest when no range is supplied.
source_date_toNoOptional inclusive source-date upper bound in YYYY-MM-DD format.
source_date_fromNoOptional inclusive source-date lower bound in YYYY-MM-DD format.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesComplete ATLAS-7 calculation-history rows keyed by source_date and issuer.
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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds context beyond the readOnly/destructive annotations: it explicitly states it is idempotent, performs no wallet/settlement/trading actions, and assembles from existing precomputed surfaces. This gives operational confidence and insight into the tool's non-mutating, aggregation-based behavior without contradicting annotations.

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?

The description is organized into five sentences covering purpose, components, parameters, behavior, and use case. It is slightly longer than minimal but each sentence carries distinct information, with the primary use case front-loaded.

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 an 8-parameter tool with an output schema, the description captures the core function, parameter semantics, safety profile, and recommended usage context effectively. The presence of an output schema covers return values, so no additional return-format explanation is needed; the description is thorough and actionable.

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?

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description enriches parameter meaning: source_date 'replays' a slice, source_date_from/to can 'page recent slices', ticker or CIK narrows to one issuer, and mode defaults to compact. These additions go beyond the schema's per-field descriptions by explaining interactions and defaults.

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 uses a specific action ('assembles') and identifies the resource ('complete ATLAS-7 calculation bundle') for an issuer and source_date. It explicitly lists the bundle components (covenant stress, company fundamentals, peer ranking, etc.) and differentiates itself from sibling tools that cover individual surfaces or recent-only history.

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 clearly states when to use: 'Use this read-only tool when agents need the complete ATLAS-7 calculation bundle' and ties it to historical report rendering. It implies alternatives for single-surface or latest-only tools ('so agents do not mix latest-only fields into a historical answer') but does not explicitly name them, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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