atlas7_quick_ticker_checkSubscription-gated semantic ticker triage.
| 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 readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the subscription-gated access restriction and hints at the semantic/analytical nature of the check, providing useful context beyond the annotations.
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?
At four words, the description is extremely concise but under-specified. It reads as a tagline rather than a functional description and omits critical context that would help an agent select and invoke the tool correctly.
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?
While output schema and annotations cover some aspects, the description is too skeletal to fully support tool selection. It does not explain what 'triage' entails, what kind of results to expect, or when this tool is the appropriate choice among the many siblings.
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 provides complete descriptions for all three optional parameters, so the schema already covers parameter semantics. The description adds no parameter-specific detail or usage nuance, warranting the baseline score.
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 'semantic ticker triage' identifies the resource (ticker) and an action (triage), but it is vague about what the triage actually produces or accomplishes. It does not clearly distinguish this tool from the similar deltasignal_quick_ticker_check or other atlas7 tools.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only contextual clue is 'subscription-gated', which is an access constraint, not a usage directive.
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.