Skip to main content
Glama

structure

Tests whether a fitted simultaneous VARMA system admits a triangular ordering, identifying transfer-network relationships and flagging spurious feedback.

Instructions

N4t — Is the system simultaneous? (Tiao and Box 1981, §3.1, §5.2.) On the current fit: for each ordered pair, the LR test that series j does not enter series i's equation (all its cross AR and MA lags at zero); with up to 4 series, every triangular ordering (each series receives only from those before it). If an ordering stands, the system is a TRANSFER NETWORK — a triangular VARMA is a transfer function model — and sima offers the hand-back to mtram with the same .pre files; it does not hand back on its own. The verdict is only as good as the order of the fit: Tiao and Box's gas furnace shows a spurious feedback at low order.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "structure"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
alphaNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose non-obvious behavior: the hand-back to mtram only when an ordering stands, that it does not hand back on its own, and the caveat that results depend on the fit order. It still does not state permissions, side effects on the current fit, or whether the operation is read-only.

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 front-loaded with the central question and then supplies test mechanics, consequence, and caveat. It is dense and jargon-heavy, but most sentences add relevant context and there is little outright waste.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the description adequately explains the conceptual test and its main caveat. However, for a complex statistical tool with undocumented required parameters and no annotations, the invocation details are incomplete.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions the two parameters 'name' or 'alpha'. Neither parameter's meaning, expected value, or role in the test is explained.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific statistical purpose: testing system simultaneity via LR tests on ordered pairs and triangular orderings. It explains the transfer-network consequence, but the tool name 'structure' is generic and the prose is dense, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by 'On the current fit' and the conditional hand-back to mtram, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives. An agent can infer it is a post-fit structural test, but must guess relative to tools like test_restriction or reorder.

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