Skip to main content
Glama

NightWatch Live Intelligence

forge_signal_plan

Turn one Forge signal into a concrete order plan for YOUR OWN mirrored account (docs/pm/SIGNAL_MIRRORING.md §2.2). Requires signal_id and an active mirror on that vault (consent first via POST /forge/vaults/{id}/mirrors — no MCP tool for that step yet); pass account_address only if you have more than one active mirror on that vault. Planning a LIVE signal costs the same 10🍒/$0.10 as reading it (free tier -> Cherry -> x402) — free if you already paid to read this exact signal; a plan against a signal older than 24h is always free. The response's charged field says whether THIS call was the one that paid, and historical says whether the signal itself is no longer live (a plan against history is still fully computed, but is not a current instruction). Sizes the order to your account's own NAV at the current mark, checks it against your own caps and the vault's mandate, and refuses it with a reason if it would breach either — including when the vault's own book is currently mirroring_paused (a charge, if any, still happens even when the plan comes back refused this way — see charged; a refusal because a later signal has superseded this one is the one exception and is never charged). This call NEVER places an order; execute the returned plan yourself with your own trade-only agent key, then report the fill with POST /forge/signals/{signal_id}/fills (account_address, filled_at, price, qty, side, and venue_order_id if you have one) — a plain write, no charge, no flag, works for any follower mirroring in their OWN account, and shows up in GET /forge/vaults/{id}/mirrors/me with source:'self_report'. The Torii-linked path (POST /torii/order with sign_mode:'client', then POST /torii/order/record with confirm_id/outcome/this signal's id) is an optional alternative that works ONLY for NightWatch's own single configured operator account (needs NW_TORII_LIVE_ENABLED and that account's own allowlisted key) — an outside follower's own account cannot authenticate to it at all; use the fills endpoint above instead. R78 liquidity safety: for an HL perp market, the plan also refuses new exposure below NW Grade C, caps a single order by both 24h volume and order-book depth (scaling it down, never up), and gates a stock-underlying perp (trade.xyz) to its cash market's hours when its grade is C or provisional. A trim or delisting-close exit signal is evaluated as a REDUCTION — exempt from the grade floor and the session gate — only when your own live position on that market opposes the order and can be read; otherwise ordinary new-exposure rules apply and the exit can be refused too. The response's grade, provisional, capped_notional_usd, impact_bps, session (with next_open when closed), and disposition/retry_at say which and why. A session-deferred plan (disposition:'deferred') is NOT retried for you — that automatic retry is the maker's own passive engine acting on the maker's own legs; call this tool again yourself at session.next_open.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
signal_idYesForge signal id (from forge_signals)
account_addressNo0x... — only needed to disambiguate when you have more than one active mirror on this signal's vault

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers extensively: it discloses charging behavior (10🍒/$0.10, free if already paid, free for signals older than 24h), refusal behavior (breach of caps/mandate, mirroring_paused, superseded signals), the fact that a charge still happens on refusal, the NEVER-places-an-order guarantee, session deferral behavior (not auto-retried), and R78 liquidity safety rules. This is far beyond what annotations would have provided.

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 information-dense and front-loaded with the core purpose, but it is extremely long — a single paragraph of roughly 400 words covering charging, refusals, R78 rules, the Torii alternative, and self-reporting. Every sentence carries real information, so it earns its place, but the lack of any structural breaks (bullets, sections) makes it harder for an agent to parse quickly. It is comprehensive but at the edge of being overwhelming.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete: it explains the response fields (charged, historical, grade, provisional, capped_notional_usd, impact_bps, session, disposition/retry_at), the follow-up action (report fills via POST /forge/signals/{id}/fills), the alternative Torii path, and the exact conditions under which the plan is refused or deferred. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: signal_id is tied to forge_signals, and account_address is only needed to disambiguate when there are multiple active mirrors on the vault. It doesn't add format details for account_address beyond the schema's '0x...' hint, but the disambiguation guidance is genuinely useful.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Turn one Forge signal into a concrete order plan for YOUR OWN mirrored account.' It clearly distinguishes this from related tools like forge_signals (which lists signals) and from the Torii path, and it explicitly states what the tool does NOT do ('This call NEVER places an order'). This is a precise, non-tautological purpose statement.

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 guidance: requires signal_id and an active mirror, consent first via POST /forge/vaults/{id}/mirrors, pass account_address only if multiple mirrors. It also names the alternative Torii path and explains exactly when that alternative applies (NightWatch's own operator account only) versus the fills endpoint for outside followers. 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.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.