atlas7_covenant_stressSubscription-gated covenant, debt, and liquidity stress view.
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds 'Subscription-gated', which is a meaningful behavioral constraint not present in annotations, indicating potential access restrictions.
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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the key qualifier 'Subscription-gated' and remains highly scannable.
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?
The description is adequate given the output schema and annotations, but it lacks context on scope, input expectations, or what differentiates this tool from similarly named siblings. It does not explain what data universe or stress metrics are included, making it harder to select correctly among many stress-related tools.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all three parameters, so the description does not need to compensate. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, but the schema is sufficient.
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 clearly identifies the resource ('covenant, debt, and liquidity stress view') and implies a read-only retrieval operation, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list'. It does not differentiate from similar sibling tools such as deltasignal_covenant_stress or atlas7_top_stress.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or use cases. The description only states what the tool is, not when it should be invoked.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.