DeltaSignal ATLAS-7

DeltaSignal thesis readiness

deltasignal_thesis_readiness

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this read-only tool before paid ATLAS evidence evaluation to determine whether a user-written issuer thesis is monitorable. It scores issuer specificity, thesis clarity, evidence alignment, watch-condition quality, falsifiability, weakening criteria, materiality, provenance requirements, non-execution boundary, and monitoring readiness. Parameters: ticker and thesis_text are required; watch_conditions, evidence_surfaces, cadence, lookback_days, output_mode, and provenance_required are optional. Behavior: read-only and idempotent; it performs deterministic local validation only, has no destructive side effects, does not call DeltaSignal evidence routes, does not execute wallets or x402 settlement, and never returns buy, sell, hold, target-price, allocation, or order instructions. Use it as the free or low-cost thesis-structuring layer; use paid thesis baseline or evaluation only after readiness is monitor_ready or needs_cleanup.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ticker`	Yes	Required issuer ticker. Examples: MSTR, RIOT, MARA, COIN.
`cadence`	No	Optional monitoring cadence.
`output_mode`	No	Optional response mode.
`thesis_text`	Yes	Required user-authored thesis text. It should state what must remain true, what weakens it, and what falsifies it.
`lookback_days`	No	Optional monitoring lookback window in days.
`watch_conditions`	No	Optional structured watch conditions extracted from the thesis.
`evidence_surfaces`	No	Optional ATLAS evidence surfaces expected to evaluate the thesis.
`provenance_required`	No	Whether source dates, route status, and evidence provenance are required before evidence-backed evaluation.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	Yes	Deterministic thesis readiness score. This response uses no ATLAS evidence and only decides whether the thesis is suitable for monitoring.
`provenance`	Yes	Traceability information for the MCP tool response.
`mcp_summary`	Yes	Concise high-signal summary of the tool response. Maximum 140 characters.
`usage_metadata`	No	Performance and estimated cost metadata for this MCP tool call.
`suggested_follow_ups`	Yes	Concrete 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.

Changed4 schema fields changedJun 9, 2026

removedOutput schema / properties / data / properties / evidence_sections

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Company-report section availability records. States include available, soft_miss, not_requested, failed_advisory, and failed_closed.",
-  "items": {
-    "additionalProperties": true,
-    "description": "Evidence section availability record.",
-    "type": "object"
-  },
-  "type": "array"
-}

removedOutput schema / properties / data / properties / issuer_evidence_envelope

Removed value: -{
-  "additionalProperties": true,
-  "description": "Company-report evidence envelope with parser-stable sections, availability states, SPECTRA metadata, and non-advice boundary.",
-  "type": "object"
-}

removedOutput schema / properties / data / properties / publication_audit_block

Removed value: -{
-  "additionalProperties": true,
-  "description": "Compact audit block for report publication, including route, evidence hash, section availability summary, SPECTRA state, and daily-change drilldown reference.",
-  "type": "object"
-}

removedOutput schema / properties / data / properties / spectra_metadata

Removed value: -{
-  "additionalProperties": true,
-  "description": "Promoted SPECTRA metadata for company reports, including latest point dates, row counts, current read, risk tier, charge level, and source date bounds when available.",
-  "type": "object"
-}

Changed4 schema fields changedJun 8, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / data / properties / evidence_sections

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Company-report section availability records. States include available, soft_miss, not_requested, failed_advisory, and failed_closed.",
+  "items": {
+    "additionalProperties": true,
+    "description": "Evidence section availability record.",
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / data / properties / issuer_evidence_envelope

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "description": "Company-report evidence envelope with parser-stable sections, availability states, SPECTRA metadata, and non-advice boundary.",
+  "type": "object"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / data / properties / publication_audit_block

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "description": "Compact audit block for report publication, including route, evidence hash, section availability summary, SPECTRA state, and daily-change drilldown reference.",
+  "type": "object"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / data / properties / spectra_metadata

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "description": "Promoted SPECTRA metadata for company reports, including latest point dates, row counts, current read, risk tier, charge level, and source date bounds when available.",
+  "type": "object"
+}

AddedMay 27, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds substantial behavioral context: 'deterministic local validation only', 'does not call DeltaSignal evidence routes', 'does not execute wallets or x402 settlement', and 'never returns buy, sell, hold, target-price, allocation, or order instructions'. This goes well beyond the structured hints and gives agents a clear safety profile.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is structured with labeled 'Parameters:' and 'Behavior:' sections, making it scannable. However, the parameter sentence duplicates the schema's required/optional info, adding minor redundancy. It is still reasonably concise and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and rich annotations, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, its safety profile, and what to do after readiness (use paid tools). It also explains the scoring dimensions and the fact that it never returns financial advice. No missing context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description lists which parameters are required vs optional, but this is already present in the schema. It does not add additional meaning about parameter formats, constraints, or relationships beyond what the schema already provides.

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: 'determine whether a user-written issuer thesis is monitorable' and lists the exact scoring dimensions. It also positions itself as a 'free or low-cost thesis-structuring layer' before paid ATLAS evidence evaluation, clearly distinguishing it from paid evaluation tools. This is a specific verb+resource+scope with explicit differentiation from alternatives.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly states when to use: 'Use this read-only tool before paid ATLAS evidence evaluation' and 'Use it as the free or low-cost thesis-structuring layer'. It also provides an alternative: 'use paid thesis baseline or evaluation only after readiness is monitor_ready or needs_cleanup'. This is clear when-to-use and alternatives guidance.

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 tools Inspect

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.

Resources

Need Help?