QuantVibe

signal_health

Verify the integrity and freshness of quantitative signals before use. Checks file existence, SHA-256 checksum validity, and data age against a configurable threshold to prevent stale or corrupted data from entering automated workflows.

Instructions

Check the health, integrity, and staleness of the quantitative signals artifact.

Use this tool for system monitoring and sanity checks before consuming signals in automated workflows.
Verifies that the signals file exists, the SHA-256 checksum is valid, and the data is within acceptable age.

Parameters:
    max_age_hours: Maximum allowable signal age in hours before considering data stale.
                   Default is 24.0 hours.

Returns:
    A dictionary containing:
    - ok: Boolean indicating if the signals file is healthy and fresh.
    - age_hours: Current age of the signals in hours since generation.
    - max_age_hours: The freshness threshold applied.
    - path: Path to the signals file on disk.
    - source_model: Model that generated the signals.
    - n_signals: Number of valid signals in the payload.
    - as_of: Market date of the signals.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`max_age_hours`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses what the tool verifies—file existence, checksum validity, and acceptable age—and describes the returned health details. The read-only nature is implied by 'check' and 'verifies' rather than stated explicitly, so it is strong but not perfect.

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 well organized: lead purpose, usage context, verification details, parameter semantics, and return fields. It is somewhat verbose because it documents return fields even though an output schema exists, but every section adds useful context.

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?

For a tool with one optional parameter and no annotations, the description is complete. It covers when to use the tool, what it verifies, the parameter meaning, and the full return payload, so an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The input schema provides only a bare number with no description (0% coverage). The description fully compensates by defining max_age_hours as the maximum allowable signal age before data is considered stale and by noting the default of 24.0 hours.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: checking the health, integrity, and staleness of the signals artifact. It then lists concrete checks (file existence, SHA-256 checksum, age) and positions the tool as a monitoring/sanity-check operation, which distinguishes it from the sibling tools that retrieve signals or list the universe.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: for system monitoring and sanity checks before consuming signals in automated workflows. It does not name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the intended use is clear enough to guide selection.

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

Deploy Server