atlas7_evidence_lineageSubscription-gated evidence and provenance lineage drilldown.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cik | No | Optional CIK. | |
| limit | No | Maximum rows. | |
| ticker | No | Optional ticker. | |
| accession | No | Optional SEC accession. | |
| fact_name | No | Optional fact or concept name. |
| 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 false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the 'Subscription-gated' context, but it does not disclose other behavioral traits like how filters combine or what a 'drilldown' returns. No contradiction with annotations exists.
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, compact sentence with no filler or redundant praise. It reads clearly, though 'drilldown' is somewhat terse and the description largely echoes the tool name.
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?
With all parameters optional and no explanation of behavior when no filters are provided, the description leaves ambiguity. The output schema exists, but the description doesn't convey what the lineage drilldown returns or how subscription gating affects usage.
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 five parameters are already described in the input schema with 100% coverage, so the description doesn't need to repeat them. It also doesn't add extra meaning beyond the schema, such as how multiple optional parameters interact.
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 'Subscription-gated evidence and provenance lineage drilldown' identifies a specific resource (evidence/provenance lineage) and action (drilldown), making the core purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate the tool from its sibling 'atlas7_lineage_audit', which could overlap in purpose.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only notes that it is 'Subscription-gated', which is an access constraint rather than a usage recommendation, and no sibling tools are referenced.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.