Skip to main content
Glama

DeltaSignal ATLAS-7

by net.aitrailblazer.api

DeltaSignal article thesis map

deltasignal_article_thesis_map
Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this read-only synthesis tool when a subscriber gives Codex or Claude Code a DeltaSignal article TripCode and asks for the thesis map behind the article. Parameters: pass article_tripcode or tripcode, optional prior_article_tripcodes, linked_xbrl_tripcodes, filing_tripcodes, and ticker. For HUT, the MVP can use the seeded HUT filing pack when no filing_tripcodes are supplied. Behavior: idempotent and evidence-scoped with no destructive side effects. It resolves the TF-SUB article object when Azure Blob is configured, compares linked TF-XBRL filing evidence, marks missing live ATLAS evidence explicitly, and returns the eight required thesis-map sections. It does not call Grok, does not invent evidence, does not mutate Substack or Azure Blob, and does not treat TripCodes as official SEC identities.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cikNoSEC CIK, with or without CIK prefix.
titleNoOptional current article title.
issuerNoIssuer ticker or short symbol. Prefer ticker for public companies.
tickerNoIssuer ticker. HUT is the seeded MVP ticker.
companyNoSEC registrant company name.
tripcodeNoOptional TF-SUB article TripCode alias. Prefer article_tripcode.
filing_dateNoSEC filing date.
filing_typeNoSEC form type such as 10-Q or 8-K.
report_dateNoSEC report date or period end.
thesis_lineNoOptional current article thesis line.
filing_periodNoNormalized filing period such as 2026-Q1.
xbrl_instanceNoXBRL instance document reference when available.
primary_filingNoPrimary SEC filing document reference.
research_riverNoOptional prior TF-SUB article TripCodes linked to this filing object.
river_tripcodesNoOptional linked TF-RIVER TripCodes.
accession_numberNoSEC accession number when the object is filing-specific.
article_tripcodeNoOptional TF-SUB article node TripCode from the article subtitle.
comparison_focusNoOptional thesis-map focus.
filing_tripcodesNoOptional TF-XBRL filing evidence TripCodes. HUT with no filing_tripcodes loads the seeded HUT filing pack.
latest_article_nodeNoOptional latest TF-SUB article node linked to this filing evidence object.
linked_ds_tripcodesNoOptional linked TF-DS signal TripCodes from the current article object.
companyfacts_snapshotNoCompanyFacts snapshot reference when available.
linked_xbrl_tripcodesNoOptional linked TF-XBRL evidence TripCodes from the current article object.
prior_article_tripcodesNoOptional prior TF-SUB TripCodes in the issuer River.
deltasignal_method_versionNoOptional method version override for deterministic regeneration tests.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesArticle-centered thesis map across TF-SUB, TF-XBRL, TF-DS, and TF-RIVER continuity.
provenanceYesTraceability information for the MCP tool response.
mcp_summaryYesConcise high-signal summary of the tool response. Maximum 140 characters.
usage_metadataNoPerformance and estimated cost metadata for this MCP tool call.
suggested_follow_upsYesConcrete next MCP calls an agent can run to continue the workflow.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added
  2. Removed
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining evidence-scoped behavior, Azure Blob resolution, TF-XBRL comparison, explicit ATLAS missing-evidence marking, and return of eight sections. It also clearly lists non-behaviors: no Grok calls, no invented evidence, no mutation, and no SEC-identity treatment.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three dense sentences deliver the use case, parameter guidance, and behavioral constraints without redundancy. The description is front-loaded with the primary purpose and every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite 25 parameters, the description plus full schema annotations and output schema provide a complete picture: when to use, what to pass, how it behaves, and what it returns. No critical gaps remain for an agent selecting or invoking this tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description adds value by prioritizing the key parameters (article_tripcode/tripcode, optional prior_article_tripcodes, linked_xbrl_tripcodes, filing_tripcodes, ticker) and explaining the HUT seeded filing pack fallback. It could have clarified parameter relationships further, but the schema already carries the load.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies this as a read-only synthesis tool for producing the thesis map behind a DeltaSignal article TripCode. It names the specific resource (thesis map) and the input condition (subscriber provides TripCode), distinguishing it from sibling mapping/compare tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It states the explicit trigger condition: when a subscriber gives Codex/Claude Code a DeltaSignal article TripCode and asks for the thesis map. It also gives parameter preferences and the HUT seeded fallback. However, it does not explicitly say when to use an alternative tool instead.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All DeltaSignal ATLAS-7 toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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.

Tool Count1/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources