atlas7_peer_comparisonSubscription-gated peer ranking and relative pressure.
| 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=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, read-only operation. The description adds the behavioral detail that it is 'subscription-gated', which is useful context not present in the annotations. However, it does not disclose what 'relative pressure' entails or how the ranking is computed, so the informational gain is minimal.
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 extremely short, but it is an under-specified fragment rather than a well-structured sentence. 'Subscription-gated peer ranking and relative pressure' is a noun phrase that reads more like a label than an explanation. While it is concise, it sacrifices meaningful content for brevity, crossing from conciseness into under-specification.
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 having an output schema and rich annotations, the description fails to explain core concepts: what a 'peer' is, how 'relative pressure' is defined, and what the returned ranking looks like. The description is not sufficient for an agent to correctly select and invoke this tool with confidence, especially given the availability of sibling tools that may appear similar. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description itself lacks essential context.
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 covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions (cik, limit, ticker), so the schema already provides the required semantic details. The description adds no additional parameter context, such as how to choose between cik and ticker or what the limit controls. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full burden and the description offers no supplementary value.
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 peer ranking and relative pressure' is a noun phrase rather than a clear verb+resource statement. It vaguely suggests the tool provides comparative ranking data, but lacks a specific action verb (e.g., 'get', 'list', 'compare') and does not explain what 'peer ranking' or 'relative pressure' concretely means. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like atlas7_pressure_board or deltasignal_peer_ranking, which likely offer overlapping capabilities.
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 mentions 'Subscription-gated' as a restriction, but does not state prerequisites, intended use cases, or exclusions. There is no mention of what inputs are needed or when a user would prefer this over a sibling tool. This is completely absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Significant overlap exists between atlas7_* and deltasignal_* tools for the same concepts (covenant stress, readiness, peer ranking, morning brief, pressure board), and composite workflows coexist with their low-level components. The descriptions are detailed but the sheer number of similar-scope tools makes misselection likely.
Most tools follow a consistent lower_snake_case pattern with a domain prefix (atlas7_, deltasignal_, strategix_). Verb-first names (generate_, resolve_, search_) and noun-only names (alpha_opportunities, readiness) are both used, but the convention is predictable enough to navigate.
With 81 tools, the surface is far beyond the 25–50 range considered excessive. Many tools are composites, natural-language variants, or near-duplicates that could be consolidated, creating an extreme mismatch for typical MCP server scope.
The tool surface is extensive, covering fundamentals, covenant stress, alpha screening, peer ranking, daily changes, briefs, historical ATLAS data, TripCode resolution, perp factors, synthetic ETF audit, and StrategiX rendering. Minor gaps exist (watchlist persistence, thesis lifecycle), but core research workflows are well covered.