Skip to main content
Glama

decker

by io.github.gigshow

decker.validate_intent

Pre-trade gate check for a proposed order intent. Call this BEFORE placing any order through any execution tool (e.g. a broker MCP's review→place flow). Checks the intent (symbol + side) against Decker's deterministic market state: engine action_gate (GO/WATCH/HOLD — a transition posture, not an order command), current structural state, and the active signal's direction / invalidation (stop) coordinates. Returns a stance reading, NOT an approval or rejection: the vocabulary is the engine gate as-is plus a mechanical side_alignment (aligned/opposed vs the active signal's direction). covered=false means the engine does not emit state for this symbol — treat as unknown, not as HOLD. top-level action_gate can be null even when covered=true — this is not a missing field, it means the current bar has no fresh trigger reading; check gate_null_reason ('no_gate_available' = neither the current bar nor the carried-forward signal had a gate at all, vs 'signal_stale' = a value existed but the underlying signal exceeded the staleness threshold and was deliberately suppressed rather than served as a confident-but-old answer). The order decision and responsibility remain with the calling agent/user. Every check is persisted to an auditable decision ledger (check_id). signal.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, reason codes scrubbed)/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 when there is no active signal or no trigger bar.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sideYesProposed order direction (buy/long = +, sell/short = -).
symbolYese.g. BTCUSDT, SILVER, 테슬라 — aliases resolve to the engine symbol (XYZ_SILVERUSD, XYZ_TSLAUSD, …).
timeframeNoGate horizon. Omit = your open position's entry TF if you hold one on this symbol, else decker.get_assembly's entry TF (the single judgment authority's current best-path TF), else the engine's default action TF (4h).
order_typeNoOptional, informational (market/limit/…) — recorded in the ledger, does not change the state verdict.

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 burden and it delivers thoroughly. It discloses that the tool returns a stance rather than approval, explicitly handles null action_gate with a gate_null_reason taxonomy, explains the covered=false semantic, and notes persistence to an auditable decision ledger. This goes far beyond what the input schema or annotations could convey.

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 heavily nested, with long parentheticals, especially around object_context and gate_null_reason. However, every sentence carries genuinely useful behavioral or interpretational detail, and the critical call-to-action is front-loaded. It could be restructured for readability, but it is not padded.

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, yet the description explains the main return dimensions: action_gate, side_alignment, covered, gate_null_reason, check_id, and signal.object_context fields. It also glosses subtle distinctions like reverse_direction_conflict versus reverse_branch.stage='confirmed'. For a tool with this complexity and no output schema, the description is essentially complete.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema: symbol aliases resolve to engine symbols, timeframe has a documented precedence fallback chain, order_type is marked informational and ledger-only, and side maps buy/long=+, sell/short=-. This materially helps an agent choose correct values.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Pre-trade gate check for a proposed order intent') and states a clear, non-tautological purpose. It differentiates itself from execution tools by instructing 'Call this BEFORE placing any order' and by clarifying it returns a 'stance reading, NOT an approval or rejection', which distinguishes it from place_order and other state-reading 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?

Usage is explicitly scoped: 'Call this BEFORE placing any order through any execution tool'. It also gives conditional interpretation guidance such as 'covered=false means the engine does not emit state for this symbol — treat as unknown, not as HOLD', which tells the agent how to behave in edge cases. The description clearly owns the decision boundary by stating 'The order decision and responsibility remain with the calling agent/user.'

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