Skip to main content
Glama

DeltaSignal ATLAS-7

by io.github.aitrailblazer

DeltaSignal covenant stress Natural Language brief

deltasignal_covenant_stress_natural
Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this premium read-only Natural Language tool when the user wants ticker-specific covenant stress evidence explained in human-readable Markdown. It renders compact ATLAS-7 covenant, leverage, liquidity, filing, and stress evidence into an audit-grade brief while preserving returned ticker, issuer, values, source dates, nulls, quality flags, and caveats. Parameters: ticker is required; date is optional and maps to the evidence period when supported; style is professional, concise, trader, or detailed. Behavior: read-only and idempotent; it performs one HTTPS read against the Natural Language route, has no destructive side effects, and never infers covenant breach, default risk, insolvency, liquidity crisis, or trade direction unless returned by evidence.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
styleNoRendering style. Style changes tone and density only, not facts.
periodNoOptional YYYY-MM-DD source/evidence period selector.
tickerYesRequired crypto public company ticker. Examples: RIOT, MARA, COIN, MSTR.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesNatural Language Covenant Stress 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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral context: 'it performs one HTTPS read against the Natural Language route, has no destructive side effects, and never infers covenant breach, default risk... unless returned by evidence.' This significantly clarifies what the tool does and does not do.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: purpose, output content, parameters, behavior. It is somewhat verbose with redundant phrases like 'premium read-only' and repeated 'read-only and idempotent' alongside the annotation hints, but each major section earns its place.

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 is largely complete for a read-only NL tool: it explains the output style, preserved fields, side effects, and inference limitations. With an output schema present, return-value detail is not needed. The only notable gap is the 'date' vs 'period' parameter name inconsistency, which could lead to incorrect invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's parameter notes are mostly redundant with the schema ('ticker is required', 'style is professional, concise, trader, or detailed'). It introduces a minor mismatch by calling the 'period' parameter 'date', which could confuse an agent matching user terms to schema properties.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Use this premium read-only Natural Language tool when the user wants ticker-specific covenant stress evidence explained in human-readable Markdown.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like deltasignal_covenant_stress and atlas7_covenant_stress by emphasizing the Natural Language / Markdown brief format.

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 states exactly when to use: 'when the user wants ticker-specific covenant stress evidence explained in human-readable Markdown.' However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it gets a 4 rather than 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