Skip to main content
Glama

DeltaSignal ATLAS-7

by io.github.aitrailblazer

DeltaSignal ATLAS-7 point-in-time factor history

deltasignal_atlas7_point_in_time_history
Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this read-only structured history tool when Mirror Pulse, backtests, or agents need daily ATLAS-7 CompanyFacts-derived factor rows keyed by as_of_date. It returns point-in-time-safe rows derived from the latest CompanyFacts archive by applying only facts with filed <= as_of_date; rows are retrospective recomputations and include lookahead safety flags. Parameters: optional ticker or CIK, source_date, as_of_date_from, as_of_date_to, mode=compact|full, limit, and offset. Behavior: read-only and idempotent; it performs one HTTPS read, has no destructive side effects, does not generate Natural Language, and never executes trades, wallets, or settlement flows. Use compact mode by default for Mirror Pulse joins; use full mode only for selected audit pages because factor_payload can be larger.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cikNoOptional CIK filter. Bare digits or CIK-prefixed digits are accepted.
modeNoOptional response mode. Use compact by default; full includes factor_payload.
limitNoMaximum daily factor rows to return. Defaults to 250 on REST and is capped lower on MCP.
offsetNoPagination offset for daily factor rows.
tickerNoOptional issuer ticker filter, for example MSTR.
source_dateNoOptional CompanyFacts archive source date in YYYY-MM-DD format.
as_of_date_toNoOptional inclusive as-of date upper bound in YYYY-MM-DD format.
as_of_date_fromNoOptional inclusive as-of date lower bound in YYYY-MM-DD format.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesCompanyFacts-derived point-in-time ATLAS-7 factor rows keyed by as_of_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
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses concrete behavioral details: performs one HTTPS read, no natural language generation, never executes trades/wallets/settlement flows, and explains the PIT mechanism (filed <= as_of_date, lookahead safety flags). This is rich, accurate context.

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 dense but efficient, covering purpose, methodology, parameters, behavior, and usage guidance without fluff. It is longer than a one-liner but every sentence adds value.

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?

The description is comprehensive for a complex 8-parameter tool with an output schema. It covers purpose, use cases, PIT logic, behavioral semantics, and mode selection. Since an output schema exists, return-value details are not required in the description.

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?

The input schema already covers all 8 parameters with descriptions, so the burden on the description is low. The description adds 'ticker or CIK' grouping and clarifies mode usage (compact vs. full), which is slightly beyond the schema, but most parameter semantics remain in the schema.

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 returns daily ATLAS-7 CompanyFacts-derived factor rows keyed by as_of_date, and specifies use cases (Mirror Pulse, backtests, agents). The PIT methodology distinguishes it from sibling history tools.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool (need for daily ATLAS-7 factor rows keyed by as_of_date) and provides mode guidance (compact for Mirror Pulse joins, full for audit pages). It does not name alternative tools or explicitly say when not to use, but the context is clear.

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