Skip to main content
Glama

decker

by io.github.gigshow

decker.get_signals

Active trading signals for the current user (with Skill Overlay applied), in customer-facing shape: coordinates (entry/target/stop), decision (ENTER/WAIT/SKIP — is_actual_trigger=true only for ENTER; WAIT/SKIP are standing candidates, not executed triggers), action_gate posture (GO/WATCH/HOLD — a stance, not an order command), progress, MTF verdict, and a plain-language summary_ko line. risk_reward_ratio is computed on the DISPLAYED coordinates (after overlay). Signals are retained rather than cut when they age (turn-retention policy) — read freshness_state (open|aged) / age_bars / freshness_sec before treating an old PENDING row as current. Filtered by symbols / min_progress / action_gate — action_gate here filters the CURRENT-MOMENT representative state, it does not search history (almost always 0 rows unless a gate is GO right now); for past GO events with their entry/target/stop and realized performance use decker.get_trigger_history instead. object_context (W1-C1 standard object block, present when a recent trigger bar exists): my_anchor / opp_anchor (reversal destination) / judgment_ref / geometry / why (action_gate + trigger_kind only — internal reason codes are scrubbed on this customer surface, use decker.get_market_state for those) / reverse_branch context (object_context.reverse_direction_conflict is present only when a local reversal shows stage='confirmed' but the swing's confirmed direction still disagrees — read it before treating reverse_branch.stage='confirmed' as a swing-level reversal). null on non-trigger bars or symbols outside the narrative universe (e.g. individual KRX stocks). Before placing any order through any execution tool, check the intent with decker.validate_intent.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
symbolsNoSymbol filter (e.g. ['BTCUSDT','ETHUSDT']). Omit for all.
timeframeNoSignal horizon filter (30m=scalp, 1h=swing, 4h/8h/1d=position). The same symbol can hold OPPOSITE directions on different horizons — omit to get the latest active signal regardless of horizon (its timeframe field says which one you got; when a specific symbols[] was requested, a row's other_horizon_conflict field flags it if another horizon is ACTIVE with the opposite direction). Prefer decker.get_assembly for the composed cross-horizon judgment instead of guessing which horizon to pass here.
action_gateNoEngine action gate filter (3-layer grammar: gate = transition posture, not an order command). Rows where the engine emitted no gate for this bar (effective_action_gate null, e.g. KRX daily) are excluded when this filter is set.
min_progressNoMinimum progress_pct (0-100).

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure, and it does thoroughly: it warns that action_gate is a stance, not an order command; explains that WAIT/SKIP are standing candidates, not executed triggers; discloses the turn-retention/aging policy and freshness fields; notes that internal reason codes are scrubbed; and explains object_context null conditions. It also clarifies that risk_reward_ratio is computed on displayed coordinates after overlay. This is far beyond what annotations would have supplied.

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 dense and information-rich, with no filler or redundant sentences, and the core purpose is front-loaded. However, it is a single massive block of nested parentheticals and qualifies as a wall of text; bulleted structure or shorter sentences would make it easier to consume. Still, every clause earns its place given the tool's complexity.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, yet the description covers the returned shape, filtering semantics, freshness/retention behavior, object_context conditions, and related-tool usage. Given the tool's complexity, nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It even includes a pre-order safety warning about validating intent.

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?

Schema coverage is 80%, but the description adds meaning well beyond the schema: it explains the action_gate filter's semantics (current-moment representative state, not history), clarifies the timeframe horizon mapping and opposite-direction conflicts, and describes what symbols filtering means relative to the narrative universe. Even the schema-described parameters gain additional context, so the description substantially enriches parameter understanding.

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 states a specific verb and resource: returning active trading signals for the current user with Skill Overlay applied, in a customer-facing shape. It enumerates the key returned fields (coordinates, decision, action_gate, progress, MTF verdict, summary_ko) and explicitly distinguishes itself from decker.get_trigger_history and decker.get_assembly. An agent can understand not only what the tool does but also how it differs from close siblings.

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 gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: it says action_gate filters the current-moment state and does not search history, and directs users to decker.get_trigger_history for past GO events. It also points to decker.get_market_state for internal reason codes and decker.get_assembly for cross-horizon judgment, plus decker.validate_intent before placing orders. This is exemplary routing guidance.

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