Gemral Edge

Explain Signal Score

explain_score

Automated qualitative inference detailing operational catalysts, timing rationale, and cross-asset signal convergence factors (labels only, scoring weights never exposed).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "ticker": "<ticker>"
    },
    "name": "explain_score"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ticker`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`notice`	No	Free-tier upgrade notice; only when results are masked/delayed.
`results`	Yes	Tool result payload (read-only evidence). Shape varies by tool; scoring weights are never exposed.
`history_limit`	No	Present when the license limits history depth: earliest_allowed date, history_days and how many older items were removed.
`deprecated_fields`	No	Present only while a renamed key is still returned next to its replacement: field (old key), replacement (new key, same value), removal (ISO date after which the old key is gone).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 26, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / deprecated_fields

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Present only while a renamed key is still returned next to its replacement: field (old key), replacement (new key, same value), removal (ISO date after which the old key is gone).",
+  "items": {
+    "additionalProperties": true,
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

C2.1/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

The description frames the tool as an explanatory/qualitative inference operation, which implies a read-only retrieval, but the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, meaning the tool is not read-only. This conflicts with the description's apparent nature. The 'labels only, scoring weights never exposed' detail is useful, but the annotation contradiction is the dominant issue.

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 sentence with no obvious filler, and the parenthetical constraint is useful. It is somewhat jargon-heavy, but it is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The presence of an output schema means the description need not explain return values in detail. However, it still omits the required ticker input, gives no usage context, and fails to reconcile the read-only implication with readOnlyHint=false, leaving key gaps for a one-parameter tool.

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

Parameters1/5

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

There is one required parameter, ticker, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description never mentions the ticker input, its expected format, or how it affects the result, so it provides no semantic meaning beyond the bare schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Combined with the name/title, an agent can infer that this explains a signal score, but the description itself does not state a clear verb+resource such as 'explain the signal score for a ticker.' It also does not distinguish this tool from nearby siblings like get_ticker_intelligence, get_signal_historical_outcomes, or screen_convergence.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. It describes what the output contains but does not say which situations call for explain_score versus other diagnostic or signal tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Gemral Edge tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.