Skip to main content
Glama

DeltaSignal ATLAS-7

by io.github.aitrailblazer

DeltaSignal accountless thesis create

deltasignal_thesis_create

Use this MCP beta write tool to create an accountless Thesis Monitor object protected by a one-time capability token. It stores the user-authored thesis and watch conditions in backend memory for the current runtime and returns thesis_id plus access_token once; persistent Postgres storage and x402 paid evaluation are the next implementation phase. Parameters: ticker and thesis_text are required; watch_conditions, cadence, lookback_days, output_mode, and provenance_required are optional. Behavior: non-trading write operation; it creates one in-memory thesis record with a fresh capability token, has no destructive side effects outside that requested object, does not call DeltaSignal evidence routes, does not execute wallet settlement, and refuses buy, sell, hold, target-price, allocation, or order instructions. Use it after thesis readiness when the user wants to start a lightweight MCP/x402 thesis-monitor flow without traditional accounts.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tickerYesRequired issuer ticker. Examples: MSTR, RIOT, MARA, COIN.
cadenceNoOptional monitoring cadence.
output_modeNoOptional response mode.
thesis_textYesRequired user-authored thesis text.
lookback_daysNoOptional monitoring lookback window in days.
watch_conditionsNoOptional structured watch conditions extracted from the thesis.
provenance_requiredNoWhether source dates, route status, and evidence provenance are required before evidence-backed evaluation.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesAccountless thesis creation response. The access_token is returned once and must be kept by the client; the server stores only its hash.
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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations provide only basic flags (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds non-obvious details: in-memory backend storage for the current runtime, one-time return of access_token, no wallet settlement, no evidence routes, and refusal of trading instructions. It also mentions the future phase (Postgres/x402), which clarifies limitations.

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-structured paragraph that moves from purpose to storage/return, parameters, behavior, and usage context. Every sentence adds information, though 'non-trading write operation' and 'no destructive side effects' somewhat redundantly restate what annotations already convey.

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 tool's lifecycle (in-memory storage, future persistence), security model (one-time capability token), return values (thesis_id and access_token), parameter essentials, side-effect behavior, and precise usage context. This is highly comprehensive given the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description restates required vs optional parameters but does not add syntax or semantic details beyond what the schema provides. The enumeration of optional parameters mirrors the schema's required array and property 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 opens with 'Use this MCP beta write tool to create an accountless Thesis Monitor object,' stating a specific verb, resource, and the accountless/token context. It distinguishes itself from sibling read/search tools by explicitly labeling itself a write tool and noting it refuses trading instructions.

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?

It explicitly states when to use: 'Use it after thesis readiness when the user wants to start a lightweight MCP/x402 thesis-monitor flow without traditional accounts.' It also provides exclusions, such as refusing buy/sell/hold instructions and not executing wallet settlement, which tells the agent when not to invoke it.

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