Skip to main content
Glama

DeltaSignal ATLAS-7

by io.github.aitrailblazer

DeltaSignal Synthetic ETF pressure state

deltasignal_synthetic_etf_pressure_state
Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this read-only composite tool when the user asks for the current pressure state of the Delta Signal Synthetic AI 10 ETF or Synthetic Tech100 ETF. It returns one user-facing pressure-state envelope assembled from persisted constituent registry evidence and persisted market-factor/SPECTRA history. Parameters: product is required and accepts AI10, Synthetic AI10 ETF, AI-PERP-INTX, Tech100, or TEK-19DEC30-CDE; optional source date filters, limit, and offset constrain the factor-history window. Behavior: read-only and idempotent with no destructive side effects; it does not fetch live exchange state, expose provider branding outside bounded identity lineage, place trades, or mutate recorder state.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum factor-history points to inspect before building the pressure state. Defaults to 10 and is capped at 100 through MCP.
offsetNoPagination offset over factor-history points used for the pressure state.
productYesRequired Synthetic ETF or linked product identifier, for example AI10, Synthetic AI10 ETF, or AI-PERP-INTX.
source_dateNoOptional exact source date in YYYY-MM-DD format.
source_date_toNoOptional inclusive source-date upper bound in YYYY-MM-DD format.
source_date_fromNoOptional inclusive source-date lower bound in YYYY-MM-DD format.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesComposite DeltaSignal Synthetic ETF pressure-state envelope.
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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds concrete behavioral details: it is composite, uses persisted evidence, does not fetch live exchange state, does not expose provider branding outside bounded identity lineage, and has no destructive side effects. This enriches the read-only/idempotent hints with specific constraints, with no contradictions.

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 with a clear structure: purpose/trigger, parameter summary, and behavioral constraints. Each sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it both concise and informative.

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?

The description covers the key aspects needed for invocation: when to use, what it returns, parameter semantics, and behavioral boundaries. Since an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to detail return fields, and the provided information is sufficient for an agent to select and call 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?

The schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by enumerating the full accepted product aliases and clarifying that limit/offset/date filters constrain the factor-history window, which is not fully captured in the individual schema 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 returns a pressure-state envelope for specific Synthetic ETFs (Delta Signal Synthetic AI 10 ETF or Synthetic Tech100 ETF). It uses a specific verb ('returns') and names the exact products, distinguishing it from sibling tools like deltasignal_pressure_board and deltasignal_synthetic_etf_audit.

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 gives an explicit trigger condition ('when the user asks for the current pressure state of the Delta Signal Synthetic AI 10 ETF or Synthetic Tech100 ETF') and lists exclusions (no live exchange state, no trades, no recorder mutation). However, it does not name alternative tools for other scenarios, so it falls short of a full 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