atlas7_issuer_identitySubscription-gated canonical issuer identity lookup by ticker or CIK.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cik | No | Issuer CIK when ticker is not supplied. | |
| limit | No | Maximum rows to return. | |
| ticker | No | Issuer ticker, for example IREN. |
| 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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds value by noting the subscription gate and the canonical nature of the data, which are not captured in annotations. This is useful behavioral context beyond the structured hints.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose, access constraint, and input options, earning its place without redundancy.
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 annotations, complete parameter schema, and presence of an output schema, the terse description is largely sufficient. It includes the key subscription-gating and canonical identity aspects, though it could optionally mention when to use this versus sibling tools for a more complete picture.
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?
The schema covers all three parameters with descriptions, so the description's mention of 'by ticker or CIK' adds little beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the description does not introduce new parameter-level meaning.
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 tool as a canonical issuer identity lookup by ticker or CIK, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like atlas7_issuer_signal by focusing on identity lookup rather than signals.
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 implies use when an issuer identity is needed by ticker or CIK, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. The 'Subscription-gated' phrase hints at access requirements but provides no direct comparison to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.