Skip to main content
Glama

DeltaSignal ATLAS-7

by io.github.aitrailblazer

DeltaSignal peer ranking

deltasignal_peer_ranking
Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this read-only tool to compare one crypto public company against its current peer group. It returns peer rank, peer percentile, peer score, stressed leverage, risk tier, debt coverage, quality flags, linkbase provenance, and period/source-date context. Parameters: ticker is required and must be one public-company symbol such as COIN, MSTR, MARA, RIOT, HUT, or CLSK; period is optional and only for reproducing a known filing date. Behavior: read-only and idempotent; it performs one HTTPS read, has no destructive side effects, and does not write external systems or access user accounts. Use it when the user asks whether one issuer is better or worse than peers; use covenant_stress for absolute stress, top_stressed for universe-wide ranking, and alpha_signals for opportunity signals.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
periodNoOptional YYYY-MM-DD filing period. Omit for the latest peer ranking.
tickerYesRequired crypto public company ticker. Examples: COIN, MSTR, MARA, RIOT, HUT, CLSK.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesPeer ranking and percentile context for one crypto public company.
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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false), the description adds concrete behavioral details: 'it performs one HTTPS read, has no destructive side effects, and does not write external systems or access user accounts.' This informs the agent about the tool's network usage and access scope, which is not fully captured by another's hints.

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, well-organized paragraph with a clear structure: purpose, outputs, parameters, behavior, and usage guidance. It is longer than the minimal example but every sentence contributes valuable information, and the key usage guidance appears in the latter part after the behavioral details.

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 output schema and rich annotations, the description is complete. It covers the tool's purpose, parameters, behavior, and alternatives, leaving no critical gaps for an agent to 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic context by specifying that ticker is required and must be a public-company symbol, and clarifies that period is 'only for reproducing a known filing date,' which goes beyond the schema's 'Omit for the latest peer ranking' to explain its purpose.

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: 'compare one crypto public company against its current peer group.' It lists the outputs (peer rank, percentile, score, etc.) and differentiates from siblings by naming alternatives like covenant_stress, top_stressed, and alpha_signals.

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?

The description explicitly says when to use the tool: 'Use it when the user asks whether one issuer is better or worse than peers.' It also provides exclusions and alternatives: 'use covenant_stress for absolute stress, top_stressed for universe-wide ranking, and alpha_signals for opportunity signals.'

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