atlas7_signal_boardSubscription-gated latest issuer signal board.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum rows to return. | |
| stress_field | No | Optional stress field override for stress-ranked tools. | |
| signal_filter | No | Optional alpha signal text filter. |
| 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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only 'Subscription-gated', which is a useful behavioral constraint but does not explain what happens without a subscription, what output to expect, or any other dynamic behavior. With annotations, this is acceptable but 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 (one phrase) but it is under-specified, not concise. It lacks essential information, so the brevity is a deficit rather than a strength.
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 existence of many sibling signal-board tools (e.g., atlas7_pressure_board, atlas7_top_stress, atlas7_alpha_candidates), the description does not provide enough context to understand what makes this board unique or what data it surfaces. The presence of an output schema partially compensates, but the description still leaves the tool's function ambiguous.
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%, so the input schema documents all three parameters (limit, stress_field, signal_filter). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, which is the baseline case for high coverage.
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 latest issuer signal board') with no clear verb or action. It suggests a board of latest issuer signals but does not state what operation the tool performs (e.g., listing, fetching, searching). It also does not differentiate from sibling tools like atlas7_pressure_board or atlas7_top_stress.
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 vs alternatives. No context, prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tool mentions. The phrase 'signal board' loosely implies a use case, but it is not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.