Skip to main content
Glama

DeltaSignal ATLAS-7

by io.github.aitrailblazer

DeltaSignal claim evidence compare

deltasignal_compare_claim_to_evidence
Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this read-only tool to compare a claim to River claim records and evidence refs. Parameters: pass claim_text or query plus river_tripcode or issuer. Behavior: read-only with no destructive side effects; returns confirmed, weakened, unresolved, or new_claim without inventing evidence.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoOptional maximum result rows. Defaults to 25.
queryNoClaim text to compare when claim_text is absent.
riverNoOptional TF-RIVER TripCode or issuer shorthand.
issuerNoOptional issuer ticker.
tickerNoOptional ticker alias for issuer.
tripcodeNoOptional TF-RIVER TripCode or TF-SUB seed TripCode.
claim_hashNoOptional precomputed normalized claim hash.
claim_textNoClaim text to compare against River claims and evidence refs.
seed_tripcodeNoOptional seed TF-SUB, TF-XBRL, TF-DS, or TF-RIVER TripCode.
river_tripcodeNoOptional TF-RIVER TripCode.
river_tripcodesNoOptional known TF-RIVER TripCodes.
article_tripcodeNoOptional current TF-SUB article TripCode alias.
current_tripcodeNoOptional current TF-SUB article TripCode.
include_unpublishedNoWhen true, include draft or unpublished article nodes.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesClaim-to-evidence comparison.
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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying the output categories ('confirmed, weakened, unresolved, or new_claim') and the behavioral guarantee 'without inventing evidence.' This is useful context not present in the annotations, though the safety profile is already well-covered.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and safety profile. Every sentence contributes meaningful information: purpose, parameter usage, behavior, and return categories. No waste, no redundancy beyond what is helpful.

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 (14 optional parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description effectively covers what an agent needs: the core parameter combos, the read-only status, and the outcome categories. The output schema handles detailed return structure, so the description is complete for selection and invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is individually documented. The description adds extra semantic value by indicating the required combination pattern: 'pass claim_text or query plus river_tripcode or issuer.' This helps select the right parameters beyond what the schema 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 a specific verb ('compare') and resource ('a claim to River claim records and evidence refs'). This distinguishes it from siblings like deltasignal_compare_article_to_filing_evidence and deltasignal_search_by_claim. The phrase 'compare a claim to River claim records and evidence refs' uniquely identifies the tool's purpose.

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 parameter usage guidance: 'pass claim_text or query plus river_tripcode or issuer.' This tells the agent which parameters to use in which combination. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or point to alternatives, so it stops short of a perfect 5.

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