Skip to main content
Glama

DeltaSignal ATLAS-7

by io.github.aitrailblazer

DeltaSignal thesis readiness

deltasignal_thesis_readiness
Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this read-only tool before paid ATLAS evidence evaluation to determine whether a user-written issuer thesis is monitorable. It scores issuer specificity, thesis clarity, evidence alignment, watch-condition quality, falsifiability, weakening criteria, materiality, provenance requirements, non-execution boundary, and monitoring readiness. Parameters: ticker and thesis_text are required; watch_conditions, evidence_surfaces, cadence, lookback_days, output_mode, and provenance_required are optional. Behavior: read-only and idempotent; it performs deterministic local validation only, has no destructive side effects, does not call DeltaSignal evidence routes, does not execute wallets or x402 settlement, and never returns buy, sell, hold, target-price, allocation, or order instructions. Use it as the free or low-cost thesis-structuring layer; use paid thesis baseline or evaluation only after readiness is monitor_ready or needs_cleanup.

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. It should state what must remain true, what weakens it, and what falsifies it.
lookback_daysNoOptional monitoring lookback window in days.
watch_conditionsNoOptional structured watch conditions extracted from the thesis.
evidence_surfacesNoOptional ATLAS evidence surfaces expected to evaluate the thesis.
provenance_requiredNoWhether source dates, route status, and evidence provenance are required before evidence-backed evaluation.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesDeterministic thesis readiness score. This response uses no ATLAS evidence and only decides whether the thesis is suitable for monitoring.
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 annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: it is read-only, idempotent, deterministic local validation, has no destructive side effects, does not call evidence routes, executes no wallets or settlement, and never returns trading instructions. This is rich context that helps the agent invoke safely.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then covers parameters and behavior in a structured, easy-to-parse manner. Each sentence adds value and there is no fluff.

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 8-parameter complexity and existing output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, behavioral constraints, and sequencing relative to paid tools. It is complete enough 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.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The tool description only restates which parameters are required/optional without adding new semantic information beyond the schema. Baseline of 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's purpose: to determine whether a user-written issuer thesis is monitorable before paid ATLAS evidence evaluation. It lists the specific scored criteria, distinguishing it from sibling tools like thesis_create or 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?

Explicitly instructs to use this tool before paid ATLAS evidence evaluation and to use paid thesis baseline/evaluation only after readiness is monitor_ready or needs_cleanup. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives.

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