Skip to main content
Glama

DeltaSignal ATLAS-7

by io.github.aitrailblazer

DeltaSignal Coinbase perp market SPECTRA

deltasignal_coinbase_perp_market_spectra
Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this read-only tool to retrieve the market SPECTRA field map for one Coinbase INTX perp product. It converts persisted market-factor history into field pressure, stored energy, compression, release, and current_read labels while preserving the underlying numeric factor evidence. Parameters: product is required; optional source_date or source_date_from/source_date_to, limit, and offset. Behavior: read-only and idempotent with no destructive side effects; it does not create factors, reconstruct missing depth, or override the underlying factor rows.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum factor-history points to include before SPECTRA assembly. Defaults to 25 and is capped at 100 through MCP.
offsetNoPagination offset over the factor-history points used for the field map.
productYesRequired Coinbase INTX product_id or contract_symbol, for example AI-PERP-INTX.
source_dateNoOptional exact source date in YYYY-MM-DD format.
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
dataYesCoinbase INTX perp market SPECTRA field map derived from persisted factor history.
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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description states 'read-only and idempotent with no destructive side effects; it does not create factors, reconstruct missing depth, or override the underlying factor rows.' This adds behavioral constraints and clarifies the non-destructive nature, fully consistent with the 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 concise, using four sentences each with a distinct purpose: usage, transformation, parameter list, and behavior. There is no filler or redundant content, though it is slightly longer than the minimal two-sentence ideal.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers purpose, transformation behavior, parameter roles, and non-destructive guarantees. With an output schema present and full parameter documentation in the schema, the description is sufficient for correct tool selection and invocation without needing further context.

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 has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all six parameters. The tool description only summarizes which parameters are required or optional, adding no extra semantic value beyond what the schema already 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'retrieve the market SPECTRA field map for one Coinbase INTX perp product.' It also explains the transformation from factor history to labels, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like deltasignal_coinbase_perp_factors or deltasignal_spectra_field_map.

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 context: 'for one Coinbase INTX perp product' and lists parameter categories (required vs optional). It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the scope is evident from the description and sibling names.

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