atlas7_alpha_candidatesSubscription-gated semantic alpha-candidate screen.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum rows to return. | |
| stress_field | No | Optional stress field override for stress-ranked tools. | |
| signal_filter | No | Optional alpha signal text filter. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds the behavioral detail that the tool is 'subscription-gated,' which is not in the annotations. It also implies a read-only screen, consistent with readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. However, it does not explain the semantics of 'semantic' or what happens with filters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short phrase, making it very concise and front-loaded. However, it is so brief that it may sacrifice clarity for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the rich schema and annotations, the description provides a minimal but sufficient glimpse of the tool's purpose and gating. It lacks usage context and differentiation from many related alpha-candidate tools, so it is not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All three parameters (limit, stress_field, signal_filter) are already described in the schema with coverage at 100%. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it is a 'semantic alpha-candidate screen,' which indicates it presents alpha candidates, but it lacks a clear verb (e.g., list/search) and does not distinguish from sibling tools like deltasignal_alpha_opportunities or atlas7_signal_board.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only mentions subscription gating, with no mention of scenarios, exclusions, or alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.