Skip to main content
Glama

DeltaSignal ATLAS-7

by io.github.aitrailblazer

DeltaSignal River TripCode resolve

deltasignal_resolve_river_tripcode
Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this read-only resolver to load a TF-RIVER issuer thesis graph from the TrendForge Azure Blob resolver lake. Parameters: pass river_tripcode, tripcode, river, current article TripCode, or issuer. Issuer lookup uses by_issuer only to find the active River root. Behavior: idempotent and fail-closed with no destructive side effects. Missing River roots, article seeds, or issuer indexes are reported as missing_or_unresolved and are never inferred as evidence.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoOptional maximum result rows. Defaults to 25.
riverNoOptional TF-RIVER TripCode or issuer shorthand.
issuerNoOptional issuer ticker.
tickerNoOptional ticker alias for issuer.
tripcodeNoOptional TF-RIVER TripCode or TF-SUB seed TripCode.
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include_unpublishedNoWhen true, include draft or unpublished article nodes.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
dataYesResolved TF-RIVER issuer thesis graph.
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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds extra behavioral context: 'idempotent and fail-closed with no destructive side effects' and 'Missing River roots, article seeds, or issuer indexes are reported as missing_or_unresolved and are never inferred as evidence.' This goes beyond the annotations, clarifying error semantics and fail-closed behavior.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by parameter guidance and behavior. No filler or redundant information; every sentence contributes to understanding the tool.

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?

Given the tool has 11 optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the main purpose, input alternatives, and failure behavior. It does not explain the return structure, but the output schema handles that. Minor gap: it doesn't disambiguate relationships between similar parameters (e.g., river vs tripcode), but the schema descriptions cover individual fields.

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 all 11 parameters are individually documented. The description adds semantic grouping by listing acceptable identifiers and explains that issuer lookup uses 'by_issuer only,' which is additional meaning not in the schema. This adds value beyond the schema’s per-parameter descriptions.

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 is a 'read-only resolver to load a TF-RIVER issuer thesis graph' with specific source location. It lists acceptable input identifiers (river_tripcode, tripcode, river, article TripCode, issuer), making the purpose and scope distinct from sibling resolvers like deltasignal_resolve_article_tripcode.

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 context for when to use the tool: when you need to resolve a TF-RIVER issuer thesis graph using any of the listed identifiers. It also specifies that issuer lookup uses 'by_issuer only.' However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this one.

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