Skip to main content
Glama

DeltaSignal ATLAS-7

by net.aitrailblazer.api

DeltaSignal River TripCode resolve

deltasignal_resolve_river_tripcode
Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this read-only resolver to load a TF-RIVER issuer thesis graph from the TrendForge Azure Blob resolver lake. Parameters: pass river_tripcode, tripcode, river, current article TripCode, or issuer. Issuer lookup uses by_issuer only to find the active River root. Behavior: idempotent and fail-closed with no destructive side effects. Missing River roots, article seeds, or issuer indexes are reported as missing_or_unresolved and are never inferred as evidence.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoOptional maximum result rows. Defaults to 25.
riverNoOptional TF-RIVER TripCode or issuer shorthand.
issuerNoOptional issuer ticker.
tickerNoOptional ticker alias for issuer.
tripcodeNoOptional TF-RIVER TripCode or TF-SUB seed TripCode.
seed_tripcodeNoOptional seed TF-SUB, TF-XBRL, TF-DS, or TF-RIVER TripCode.
river_tripcodeNoOptional TF-RIVER TripCode.
river_tripcodesNoOptional known TF-RIVER TripCodes.
article_tripcodeNoOptional current TF-SUB article TripCode alias.
current_tripcodeNoOptional current TF-SUB article TripCode.
include_unpublishedNoWhen true, include draft or unpublished article nodes.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesResolved TF-RIVER issuer thesis graph.
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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds valuable behavioral details: 'fail-closed', missing results reported as 'missing_or_unresolved', and 'never inferred as evidence'. It also clarifies the read-only, idempotent nature explicitly, reinforcing and extending the annotation context.

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?

The description is compact and well-structured with 'Parameters:' and 'Behavior:' sections. It front-loads the core purpose and adds only essential detail. Every sentence contributes value, and the formatting improves scannability.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the 11 optional parameters, existing output schema, and sibling tool context, the description covers the tool's role, accepted inputs, and failure semantics thoroughly. It does not explain behavior when no parameters are provided or how multiple parameters combine, but this is a minor gap for a resolver tool with a rich schema.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minor grouping information by listing acceptable parameter alternatives (river_tripcode, tripcode, river, article TripCode, issuer) and clarifies that issuer lookup uses by_issuer. This is helpful but does not significantly deepen understanding of parameter interactions or formats beyond the schema descriptions.

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 states a specific action ('load a TF-RIVER issuer thesis graph') with a clear resource and location, distinguishing it from sibling resolvers like resolve_article_tripcode and resolve_filing_tripcode. It also lists the accepted identifier types, making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

The description provides clear context on when to use the tool (to resolve river tripcodes for issuer thesis graphs) and explains the issuer lookup behavior ('uses by_issuer only'). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this resolver, so it falls short of a 5.

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