atlas7_recent_historySubscription-gated recent point-in-time issuer trajectory.
| 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 cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds 'subscription-gated' which is an access-control behavior not present in annotations, earning some credit. However, it omits other traits like response pagination or rate limits, so transparency is minimal but not absent.
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 brief, but brevity here equates to under-specification rather than conciseness. It is a fragment, not a sentence, and the key verb is missing. The structure does not front-load important operational details.
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 large sibling toolset with similar names (e.g., atlas7_archive_search, deltasignal_atlas7_point_in_time_history), the description fails to clarify the unique use case or data scope. The output schema exists but is not enough to compensate for the missing contextual differentiation.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all three optional parameters (cik, limit, ticker) clearly described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning or usage nuance, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 is a noun phrase ('Subscription-gated recent point-in-time issuer trajectory') without a verb, so it does not explicitly state what action the tool performs. It hints at historical issuer data but is vague about the specific metric and does not distinguish it from similar tools like deltasignal_atlas7_point_in_time_history.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool or when to prefer alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites other than subscription-gating, or contextual triggers. The agent is left without direction to choose this tool among numerous siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.