Keel — Hyperliquid trading strategies

Pull Strategy Updates

keel_strategy_pull

Idempotent

Fetch server HEAD into your local strategy copy, blocking when uncommitted local edits would be lost. Push local work first, or pass force=True to overwrite it.

Instructions

Re-fetch the server HEAD into the local working copy — the 'git pull' of the sync model. Refuses when local has uncommitted changes (diverged) so you don't silently lose work; push first, or pass force=True to overwrite local (LOSES local edits). Use it when someone else — a teammate, the web editor, a fork, a restore — may have moved the strategy while you were working locally; check keel_strategy_status first to see whether a pull is even needed. Do NOT use to send local edits UP — call keel_strategy_push. Do NOT use to inspect what changed — call keel_strategy_history.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "keel_strategy_pull"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`force`	No	Overwrite local changes with server HEAD. LOSES local edits — only use after explicit confirmation.
`strategy_id`	No	Strategy to pull. Auto-detected from workspace if omitted.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: it refuses when local has uncommitted changes (diverged), the safe remedy is to push first, and force=True overwrites local and loses edits. The annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's force-flag data-loss warning slightly stretches the destructiveHint=false claim, but since the default operation refuses and force is opt-in, this is a nuance rather than a contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the core operation before the safety constraints and alternatives, and every sentence earns its place — the diverged-refusal rule, force semantics, the trigger condition, and the two explicit anti-uses. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a two-parameter sync tool, the description covers purpose, trigger conditions, the alternative tools, and the data-loss edge case — everything an agent needs to call it correctly.

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%: the force parameter already documents 'Overwrite local changes with server HEAD. LOSES local edits' and strategy_id documents auto-detection. The description reinforces the consequence of force but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource — 'Re-fetch the server HEAD into the local working copy' — reinforced by a 'git pull' analogy that maps the operation precisely. It explicitly names what it is not (push, history) so an agent can distinguish it from the many strategy_* siblings without opening schemas.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use ('someone else — a teammate, the web editor, a fork, a restore — may have moved the strategy'), a prerequisite check ('check keel_strategy_status first'), and two named exclusions routing to keel_strategy_push and keel_strategy_history. 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.

Deploy Server