Skip to main content
Glama

decker

by io.github.gigshow
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

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).

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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / timeframe / description
      Previous value: -"Gate horizon. Omit = the active signal's timeframe if one exists, else the engine's default action TF (4h)."New value: +"Gate 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)."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it defines the return vocabulary, explains covered=false (unknown, not HOLD), the null action_gate case, both gate_null_reason values, and the deliberate staleness suppression. It further discloses ledger persistence (check_id) and that responsibility stays with the caller.

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?

Purpose and call timing are front-loaded, and the dense edge-case material on null gates is justified by the tool's complexity. It is a single unbroken block, so structure could be tighter, but nearly every sentence carries decision-relevant information.

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?

For a complex gate-check tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers return semantics, the covered/null/stale edge cases, and the decision boundary. Nothing an agent needs to interpret the response correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents symbol aliasing, side sign convention, and the timeframe defaulting chain. The description adds only marginal parameter context ('symbol + side') beyond the structured fields, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Pre-trade gate check for a proposed order intent') and immediately separates itself from execution siblings by naming the review→place flow it precedes. An agent can distinguish it from decker.place_order and decker.get_engine_state_raw without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly prescribes timing ('Call this BEFORE placing any order through any execution tool') and references the alternative (broker MCP review→place). It also states the decision boundary — the tool reads a stance, it does not approve/reject — leaving no ambiguity about when to invoke it.

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
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources