Skip to main content
Glama

DeltaSignal ATLAS-7

by io.github.aitrailblazer

DeltaSignal article-to-filing evidence compare

deltasignal_compare_article_to_filing_evidence
Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this read-only comparison tool to compare a TF-SUB article node against resolved TF-XBRL filing evidence objects. Parameters: article_tripcode is optional, filing_tripcodes may list one or more TF-XBRL objects, and ticker=HUT with no filing_tripcodes loads the default HUT filing pack. Behavior: idempotent and local for the MVP; it has no destructive side effects, does not mint official SEC identity, does not infer filing evidence from prose, and does not call wallets or x402 settlement. The HUT MVP returns a structured article-readiness packet with filing changes, confirmed thesis points, weakened assumptions, stress points, XBRL drivers, invalidation checks, and next-filing monitors.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cikNoSEC CIK, with or without CIK prefix.
issuerNoIssuer ticker or short symbol. Prefer ticker for public companies.
tickerNoIssuer ticker. HUT is the seeded MVP ticker.
companyNoSEC registrant company name.
filing_dateNoSEC filing date.
filing_typeNoSEC form type such as 10-Q or 8-K.
report_dateNoSEC report date or period end.
filing_periodNoNormalized filing period such as 2026-Q1.
xbrl_instanceNoXBRL instance document reference when available.
primary_filingNoPrimary SEC filing document reference.
research_riverNoOptional prior TF-SUB article TripCodes linked to this filing object.
accession_numberNoSEC accession number when the object is filing-specific.
article_tripcodeNoOptional TF-SUB article node TripCode to compare against filing evidence.
comparison_focusNoOptional comparison focus, such as HUT article readiness or thesis verification.
filing_tripcodesNoOptional TF-XBRL filing evidence TripCodes. If omitted for HUT, the default HUT filing pack is used.
latest_article_nodeNoOptional latest TF-SUB article node linked to this filing evidence object.
companyfacts_snapshotNoCompanyFacts snapshot reference when available.
deltasignal_method_versionNoOptional method version override for deterministic regeneration tests.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesArticle-to-filing thesis verification packet backed by TF-XBRL resolver objects.
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?

Even though annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, the description adds substantial behavioral context: 'idempotent and local for the MVP,' 'does not mint official SEC identity,' 'does not infer filing evidence from prose,' and 'does not call wallets or x402 settlement.' This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand side effects and constraints.

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 concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and organized into purpose, parameter notes, behavior, and output packet. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or repetition. It covers a complex tool in about 100 words without unnecessary detail.

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 complexity (18 params) and the presence of a full output schema plus annotations, the description is complete enough. It explains the core purpose, key parameter behavior, non-functional characteristics (read-only, idempotent, local), and the structure of the returned packet. The agent can confidently select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for descriptions, giving a baseline of 3. The tool description adds meaning by clarifying how key parameters interact: article_tripcode is optional, filing_tripcodes may list one or more objects, and ticker=HUT with no filing_tripcodes loads the default HUT filing pack. This adds value beyond the schema, though not for all 18 parameters.

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 function with a specific verb and resource: 'compare a TF-SUB article node against resolved TF-XBRL filing evidence objects.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like deltasignal_compare_claim_to_evidence by focusing on article-to-filing evidence comparison rather than claims.

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 gives clear usage context: 'Use this read-only comparison tool' and explains key parameter combinations (e.g., article_tripcode optional, filing_tripcodes list, ticker=HUT with no filing_tripcodes loads default pack). It does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives, but the usage context is sufficiently clear for an agent to select it appropriately.

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