atlas7_lineage_auditSubscription-gated calculation lineage audit.
| 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?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description's main contribution is the 'subscription-gated' access constraint, which is useful. However, it does not describe the audit's scope, return format, or any limitations. This adds some value beyond annotations but is not rich.
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 phrase with no filler and is easy to parse. It is front-loaded, but its brevity comes at the cost of explicitness, making it less informative than it could be while still being concise.
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?
Despite strong annotations and a complete schema, the description is too terse to orient the agent within a large sibling set. It lacks context about calculation lineage audit semantics, prerequisites beyond subscription, and typical usage scenarios, so the overall tool definition feels incomplete.
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 input schema has full description coverage for all five optional parameters, so the schema already documents their semantics. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, and the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the burden.
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 calculation lineage audit,' uses a noun phrase rather than a clear action verb. It indicates the tool's domain but does not specify what the agent can do with it (e.g., retrieve, run, inspect). It vaguely distinguishes from sibling lineage tools like atlas7_evidence_lineage by adding 'calculation,' but remains under-specified.
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 for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as atlas7_evidence_lineage or deltasignal_atlas7_audit_status. The only hint is 'subscription-gated,' which implies access restrictions but gives no context on preferred use cases or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.