Arsenal Decision Engine
Related Servers
Alternatives to Arsenal Decision Engine
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceThe verifiable risk engine for autonomous agents: deterministic, self-verifying financial calculations that an agent can delegate and prove. It covers liquidation and funding, position sizing and risk of ruin, options Greeks and margin, LP divergence, treasury concentration and depeg, execution quality checks, plus intelligence on options, DeFi, prediction markets, and transaction safety analysis.1 npm2MIT
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceDeterministic risk governance for crypto trading agents. 5-level policy engine with position sizing, leverage limits, and trade blocking. One tool: get_risk_policy. Supports BTC and ETH.423 npm1MIT

Collar Guardrailofficial
AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables AI trading agents to submit proposed trades for deterministic pre-execution risk evaluation, returning allow/warn/deny decisions, risk scores, and tamper-evident audit hashes. It also supports token safety checks, balance simulation, asset registry lookup, and audit trail verification.MIT- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables AI agents to analyze Ethereum wallets, simulate transactions, and draft transfers with deterministic policy and risk scoring, requiring human approval before on-chain execution.10 npmISC
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables agents to assess structural information-asymmetry risk in prediction-market event contracts from contract text alone, with deterministic scoring and no LLM API dependency.99MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEvaluates on-chain risk for Pharos agents before executing transactions, providing verdicts (safe/caution/dangerous) and risk-bounded execution plans via Foundry cast reads.MIT No Attribution
TDQS
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools target clearly distinct functions: one fetches an audit signal, the other evaluates LP pool risk. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: get_latest_audit and evaluate_pool. This is predictable and uniform.
With only 2 tools, the server sits at the thin end of the scale. The scope appears narrow, so the count is plausible, but it feels slightly sparse for a 'decision engine' that might warrant additional supporting functions.
For the apparent purpose of providing audit signals and LP risk evaluation, the two tools cover the core workflow without obvious dead ends. Minor gaps may exist, such as historical audit retrieval or pool parameters, but the essential actions are covered.