Keel — Hyperliquid trading strategies

Fork Strategy

keel_strategy_fork

Idempotent

Fork any Hyperliquid strategy (by ID or share link) into your workspace to safely iterate on a copy — edit, backtest, and improve without altering the original.

Instructions

Fork a strategy into your org to iterate on a COPY — the safe way to improve or adapt an existing strategy (yours, or one from a share link) without touching the original. The source argument accepts either a Keel strategy id (str_*) or a share-link id; the tool auto-detects which endpoint to call. Once forked, iterate — don't rewrite: make the SMALLEST change that answers the request, one at a time, and re-backtest between changes; never rearchitect a working strategy or add unrequested signals without asking first. Discovery still applies to every edit — keel_components_search the concept, then keel_components_detail_batch, before wiring it in via keel_strategy_compose. Do NOT use to compose a new strategy from scratch — call keel_strategy_compose. Do NOT use to create a share link — call keel_share_create.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	Optional new name for the fork.
`source`	Yes	Strategy id (`str_*`) or share-link id.
`target_workspace_id`	No	Workspace to place the fork in (default: org default).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: fork produces a non-destructive COPY, the source argument accepts either a str_* id or a share-link id, and the tool auto-detects which endpoint to call. This is genuinely useful and not contradictory — no annotation conflict.

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 is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by usage and exclusions. It reads long, but most sentences earn their place — especially the sibling routing. The iteration/never-rearchitect guidance is arguably workflow policy beyond the tool's function, which costs a point, but the structure is strong and well-ordered.

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?

Complete for a mutation tool with an output schema and rich sibling context. It covers when to use, when not to use, source format, workflow for edits, and the alternative tools. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly without further queries.

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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (source, name, target_workspace_id) are already documented in the schema. The description adds marginal value by clarifying the source argument formats (str_* vs share-link id) and auto-detection, but the heavy lifting is done by the schema — 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?

Uses a specific verb (Fork) + resource (strategy) and states the outcome precisely: a safe copy in your org, never touching the original. It explicitly differentiates from siblings by naming what it is NOT for — composing from scratch (keel_strategy_compose) or creating share links (keel_share_create) — so the agent can disambiguate without opening any 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use (iterating on an existing strategy via a COPY) and when-not-to-use with named alternatives: do NOT compose from scratch, call keel_strategy_compose; do NOT create a share link, call keel_share_create. It even prescribes the post-fork workflow (smallest change, re-backtest, discovery via keel_components_search/detail_batch before compose). Nothing is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.