Skip to main content
Glama

DeltaSignal ATLAS-7

by io.github.aitrailblazer

DeltaSignal company report

deltasignal_company_report
Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this read-only composite workflow tool for the default full single-issuer DeltaSignal ATLAS-7 company report add-on. It server-enforces the complete company report call plan: readiness, company_fundamentals, alpha_signals, peer_ranking, covenant_stress, and SPECTRA field-map support for one normalized ticker. Parameters: ticker is required and normalized to uppercase; period, include_segments, include_related_party, and output_mode=compact are optional. SPECTRA is included when a field-map contract is available for the issuer. Behavior: read-only and idempotent; it performs six internal HTTPS reads, has no destructive side effects, rejects invalid tickers before fan-out, and preserves partial results if a required issuer leg fails. Use it when the user asks for a report, deep dive, issuer brief, or diligence package on one crypto public-company ticker, or when a Morning Brief top-stressed or alpha-screen row needs a separately sold explanation report; use low-level tools only for custom drilldowns.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
periodNoOptional YYYY-MM-DD reporting period to pass to fundamentals, peer ranking, and covenant stress when reproducing a known filing date.
tickerYesRequired crypto public company ticker. The server trims whitespace and normalizes to uppercase before all internal calls. Examples: RIOT, MARA, COIN, MSTR.
output_modeNoOptional response mode. Only compact is accepted in Phase 1.
include_segmentsNoRequest segment containers from company_fundamentals when available.
include_related_partyNoRequest related-party containers from company_fundamentals when available.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesServer-enforced DeltaSignal company report composite response.
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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds concrete behavior: performs six internal HTTPS reads, rejects invalid tickers before fan-out, preserves partial results on leg failure, and conditionally includes SPECTRA. This exceeds baseline by providing operational expectations.

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 a single dense paragraph that covers purpose, parameters, behavior, and usage. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value, though the parameter list could be slightly more structured. Efficient for the tool's complexity.

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's composite nature, the description fully covers the call plan, parameter semantics, behavioral guarantees, and usage scenarios. With an output schema present, the lack of return-value detail is acceptable. No gaps identified.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description restates ticker normalization and parameter optionality but adds no new semantic detail; all parameter meaning is already in the schema. It does not exceed the baseline.

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 this is a composite workflow tool for the DeltaSignal ATLAS-7 company report, listing the six component calls (readiness, company_fundamentals, alpha_signals, peer_ranking, covenant_stress, SPECTRA). It distinguishes from low-level sibling tools by explicitly reserving them for custom drilldowns.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is provided: 'when the user asks for a report, deep dive, issuer brief, or diligence package' and for Morning Brief/alpha-screen rows. It also explicitly states when NOT to use it: 'use low-level tools only for custom drilldowns.' This is exemplary.

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