Skip to main content
Glama

DeltaSignal ATLAS-7

DeltaSignal article TripCode resolve

deltasignal_resolve_article_tripcode
Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this read-only resolver tool to load a TF-SUB article/narrative research object from the TrendForge Azure Blob resolver lake. Parameters: tripcode is required and must be a proprietary DeltaSignal article resolver key such as TF-SUB-DA79A58372. Behavior: idempotent and read-only with no destructive side effects; it does not mutate Azure Blob, Substack, filings, wallets, or account state. Use this when a subscriber gives Codex or Claude Code a TripCode from an article subtitle and asks for the machine-readable research object behind the article.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tripcodeYesRequired TF-SUB article TripCode, for example TF-SUB-DA79A58372.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesResolved TF-SUB article/narrative research object from Azure Blob.
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
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds specificity by stating it does not mutate Azure Blob, Substack, filings, wallets, or account state, and labels it a 'read-only resolver'. This adds context beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, parameter requirement, and usage context. Information is front-loaded and no filler words.

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?

With an output schema present, the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers purpose, parameter, behavior, and usage scenario, making it complete for a parametrically simple resolver tool.

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% with a detailed param description and example. The description's mention of 'proprietary DeltaSignal article resolver key' mostly repeats the schema. It adds no new meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 loads a TF-SUB article/narrative research object from a specific Azure Blob resolver lake, using a specific verb ('load') and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying 'article' (vs filing/river) and mentions the TripCode 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 explicitly gives the trigger condition: 'Use this when a subscriber gives Codex or Claude Code a TripCode from an article subtitle.' It implies not for other tripcode types but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it's clear but not fully exhaustive.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

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.