Skip to main content
Glama

DeltaSignal ATLAS-7

by io.github.aitrailblazer

DeltaSignal top stressed issuers

deltasignal_top_stressed
Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this read-only screening tool to rank the most stressed crypto public companies in the active DeltaSignal slice. It returns issuer rows sorted by stress, including ticker, period, risk tier, stress values, debt-coverage status, quality flags, linkbase provenance, live-price indicators, and pagination metadata. Parameters: limit is 1-100 and should usually be 5-20 for summaries; offset is only for pagination after a previous screen. Behavior: read-only and idempotent; it performs one HTTPS read, has no destructive side effects, and never writes orders, files, accounts, or wallet state. Use it for portfolio triage, issuer watchlists, and deciding which companies deserve deeper covenant or alpha analysis; use covenant_stress with ticker for detail on one issuer.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum issuers to return. Use 5-20 for agent summaries and up to 100 for full screening.
offsetNoPagination offset for continuing a previous ranked screen.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesRanked stressed issuer screen.
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

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds concrete behavioral specifics: 'performs one HTTPS read, has no destructive side effects, and never writes orders, files, accounts, or wallet state'. This goes beyond the annotations by spelling out what the tool does not do, giving the agent confidence about side-effect freedom.

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 tightly organized: purpose, output contents, parameter guidance, behavioral guarantee, and use cases each occupy a compact sentence or clause. No filler or repetition; every sentence adds new information while staying readable. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 output (issuer rows sorted by stress with specific fields), parameter semantics, side-effect behavior, use cases, and alternative tools. With output schema and annotations present, this description fills all remaining context gaps, including pagination metadata and performance characteristics (one HTTPS read).

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

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

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaningful parameter guidance: 'limit is 1-100 and should usually be 5-20 for summaries' and 'offset is only for pagination after a previous screen'. These usage hints go beyond the schema's basic range and description, making parameter selection more informed.

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 a specific verb 'rank' and resource 'most stressed crypto public companies in the active DeltaSignal slice', clearly identifying the tool's purpose. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool by explicitly recommending 'covenant_stress with ticker' for single-issuer detail, which separates this aggregate screening tool from the detail-oriented alternative.

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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'portfolio triage, issuer watchlists, and deciding which companies deserve deeper covenant or alpha analysis'. It also states the alternative: 'use covenant_stress with ticker for detail on one issuer', and offers parameter-level usage advice (limit 5-20 for summaries, offset only for pagination). This fully addresses when and when not to use the tool.

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