Skip to main content
Glama

decker

by io.github.gigshow

decker.get_assembly

Multi-timeframe optimal-path assembly per symbol (STRATEGY_LAYER §8): one deterministic machine verdict combining all live timeframes — direction, grade (aligned | structure+pullback | exhaustion-reversal), entry (now vs wait, with source TF), stop (risk stop), target (upper-TF target), RR, and a conditional switch coordinate on mixed structure. Upper TF supplies the target (slower = higher success), lower TF supplies the entry. This is the single judgment authority — narrate or filter it, do not re-decide coordinates. Omit symbol for all 14 universe symbols. ⚠ grade='aligned' means no OPPOSING-direction row exists among the active timeframes — it does NOT mean every timeframe's gate is GO/actionable right now. Check matrix_summary[].gate per timeframe before treating 'aligned' as 'all timeframes tradeable now'.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
symbolNoOptional symbol or alias (BTC, 비트코인, GOLD, 테슬라...). Omit for the full universe.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description fully discloses the tool's behavior: it is the single judgment authority, combining upper/lower TF logic, and includes a critical behavioral nuance about the 'aligned' grade. Although no annotations exist, the description itself provides rich behavioral context, meeting or exceeding the need.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is front-loaded with purpose but includes several parenthetical clarifications and a warning that add significant length. While every sentence adds value, the density might hinder rapid parsing for an agent. It could be tighter.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the complexity of the tool (multi-timeframe assembly, judgment authority), the description is remarkably complete. It covers direction, grade, entry, stop, target, RR, and a conditional switch, plus the critical 'aligned' caveat. No output schema exists, so the description partially compensates, but lacks explicit return structure explanation.

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?

The single parameter is well-described in the input schema, and schema coverage is 100%, so the description cannot add much beyond the schema. The description mentions 'omit for all 14 universe symbols' which is slightly redundant with the schema's 'Omit for the full universe' but consistent.

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 clearly states the tool produces a multi-timeframe optimal-path assembly per symbol, acting as a single deterministic machine verdict combining all live timeframes. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., get_reading, get_signals) by being the judgment authority, not a data source.

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 tells the agent to narrate or filter the output but not re-decide coordinates, and explains when to use symbol vs omit for the full universe. It also clarifies a common misinterpretation of 'aligned' grade, preventing misuse.

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

All decker toolsInspect
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.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Execution and settings tools are clearly separated, but there is a dense cluster of analytical getters (get_view, get_reading, get_signals, get_assembly) that all return market verdicts and coordinates; their boundaries are only clear after reading the long descriptions. get_market_state versus get_state_timeline is cleaner, but the overlap among the analysis-verdict tools could still cause misselection.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools share the decker_ prefix and a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (get_* for reads, place_order/close_position/update_protective_stops/set_skill_overlay/validate_intent for actions). There is no mixing of naming conventions or vague generic verbs.

Tool Count5/5

Thirteen tools is within the ideal well-scoped range for an execution-plus-analysis server. Each tool maps to a distinct responsibility (state reading, timeline history, signals, execution, position management, user settings, pre-trade validation), so none feels like filler.

Completeness4/5

The lifecycle is well covered: validate_intent → place_order → get_positions → update_protective_stops → close_position, with signal/analysis and skill-overlay tools around it. Minor gaps like a dedicated account-balance or full order-history tool are absent, but the execution engine handles caps server-side and closed round-trips are included in get_positions.

Resources