Hello, Good afternoon.
I'm working on a mono typeface. I'd like your assistance in determining the legibility of the glyph. I've attached an image of one of the glyphs.
Are you all able to identify this glyph?
What are some of the best variants you've come across in your type journey? Can you think of any typefaces that have a distinctive design for this glyph?
How can I make this glyph more legible?
P.S. After some time, I will unveil this glyph.

Your input would be really helpful to me.
Comments
But even in isolation, I think it is a more recognizable @ than many of Ray’s display face @ signs—as one would expect. A lot depends on the purpose of the typeface and the priority of legibility.
You could also borrow the general spirit of Ray’s solutions, while keeping the distinctive “a” shape in the middle, and have the loop sprout from the top rather than the bottom. Then you can wrap it around three sides instead of two, while still having only three vertical elements. (I suspect this might be just a slight advantage at best; I find the particular loop construction at the lower right is a big part of what usually distinguishes the @.)
In my opinion, the lines to the left and right of the letter “a” that occupies the centre of @ are very important, because they provide boundaries which discourage the reader from assuming that the “a” of @ is the middle part of a word that comprises text on either side of it. A swirly shape does the job almost as well, with no discernible “a”:
In fact, the more busy that the @ looks, the better to distinguish it, as symbol not letter, from the adjacent words—so it is a mistake to trim it.
luc.devroye.org/fonts-44934.html
Complex characters appear to have lighter strokes on typewriters. When struck through layers of carbon paper, the complete @ form probably looked like a blob or turned invisible, thus simpler forms would have added some clarity.
Thank you so much for your time!