Skip to main content
Glama

Dry-run a trade — returns the same quote + feasibility verdict as /trade/prepare but without the signable intent

kellian_simulate_trade
Read-onlyIdempotent

Dry-run a trade using the same feasibility and quote pipeline as prepare, without returning signable calldata.

Examples: Dry-run the same body used for prepare

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": {
      "marketAddress": "<marketAddress>",
      "side": "<side>",
      "tradeType": "<tradeType>"
    },
    "name": "kellian_simulate_trade"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sideYes`side` = which OUTCOME (0-indexed: 0=outcome1,1=outcome2,2=outcome3), NOT buy/sell. Buy/sell is the direction field (`type`/`tradeType`/`action`/`direction`).
amountNoExact-input size. BUY: collateral spent. SELL: outcome tokens sold. Outcome tokens carry the market collateral's own denomination — one outcome token redeems for one collateral unit — so every outcome-token quantity uses that single unit: positions.outcome1Shares/outcome2Shares/outcome3Shares, SELL amount, 409 available/requested, and outcomeTokensOut/minOutcomeTokensOut. It is also the unit the signed intent carries, so nothing is converted between the wire, the engine and the calldata. Omit when using closePercent or targetCollateralOut.
chainIdNo
tradeTypeYesTrade DIRECTION (buy/sell). Note: this same concept is named `kind` (0=buy/1=sell int) on /orderbook/* and `side`/`action`/`tradeType`/`type`/`direction` on other trade endpoints — see skill.md field-map.
slippageBpsNo
closePercentNoSELL only. Percent (1–100) of the wallet’s current position in `side` to sell; 100 closes it fully. Server sizes from the live on-chain balance. Mutually exclusive with amount and targetCollateralOut.
marketAddressYes
walletAddressNoWallet that would sign the intent for the trade being simulated.
targetCollateralOutNoSELL only. Size the sell so its net proceeds reach ~this much collateral (wei); server sizes from the live balance. Mutually exclusive with amount and closePercent.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it runs the same feasibility and quote pipeline as prepare, so results are representative, and it deliberately omits signable calldata. It stops short of describing failure modes or what a negative feasibility verdict looks like.

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?

Two short sentences with the differentiator front-loaded and zero filler. The second line is a fragment ('Examples: Dry-run the same body used for prepare') that reads slightly clipped but still earns its place by giving a concrete reuse pattern.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover safety. For a 9-parameter tool with a 67% documented schema, however, the description leaves gaps: whether walletAddress is needed for simulation, how sizing options interact, and what a failing feasibility verdict implies before calling prepare.

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 67% and the schema already carries rich field-level docs for side, amount, tradeType, closePercent and targetCollateralOut. The description contributes one meaningful hint — the body is identical to the one used for prepare — but adds no field-level meaning of its own, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Dry-run a trade') and explicitly anchors it to the sibling prepare pipeline, noting the key difference: no signable calldata is returned. It does not, however, position itself against other quote-like siblings such as kellian_get_quote or kellian_estimate_market_order, so the agent must infer that boundary.

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 only implied via 'Dry-run the same body used for prepare', which usefully tells the agent to reuse an existing prepare payload. There is no explicit statement of when to choose simulation over kellian_prepare_trade or kellian_get_quote, and no exclusions or prerequisites (e.g. whether a wallet must be connected).

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources