aipricepatterns

get_trader_decision_v2

Return a conservative chart-parity trader decision. V2 combines the candle snapshot contract with freshness and execution-component gates; it returns NO_TRADE while candle direction is unvalidated or canonical server-side order flow is unavailable.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`f`	No	Forward horizon in bars. Only the chart presets 5, 10, 30, and 50 are supported
`q`	No	Candles in the matched pattern. Only the chart presets 3, 5, 8, and 12 are supported
`limit`	No	Number of closest candle analogues to return (1-20)
`symbol`	No	Supported chart symbol: BTCUSDT, ETHUSDT, or SOLUSDT	BTCUSDT
`anchorTs`	No	Optional historical replay anchor in Unix milliseconds. Omit for the latest chart candle
`interval`	No	Supported chart timeframe: 5m, 15m, 1h, 4h, or 1d	5m
`token_id`	No	Optional Manus access token. Paid tools use tokenized service access, not a monthly subscription: when token_id is omitted the server returns payment_required with a Solana Pay invoice, and after payment you retry with the same token while the server uses Manus token/resolve to recover pending access.
`includeAnalogueCandles`	No	Include OHLC arrays for every analogue and its continuation. False keeps the response agent-sized

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

AddedAug 20, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description discloses the NO_TRADE condition and mentions 'conservative' and 'gates', but uses jargon like 'candle snapshot contract' and 'freshness and execution-component gates' without explaining them. With no annotations provided, this description does not adequately convey safety or side effects.

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?

The description is a single sentence, concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It uses jargon that may reduce clarity, but it is not overly verbose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (8 parameters, no output schema), the description lacks details on the return format, the meaning of 'chart-parity', and how the gates affect the outcome. It only mentions NO_TRADE as a fallback, leaving the successful response underspecified.

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?

The description does not mention any parameters. However, the input schema has 100% coverage documenting all 8 parameters, so the schema carries the burden. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it returns a 'conservative chart-parity trader decision' and mentions the V2 version, giving a specific purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling decision tools like get_trading_decision or get_live_polymarket_trade_decision, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention any exclusions or preferred use cases, only describes internal logic.

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

All aipricepatterns tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Several tools inhabit overlapping territory: find_market_analogs, pattern_search, search_by_sketch, and get_candle_market_snapshot all relate to historical pattern matching, while get_trading_decision, get_trader_decision_v2, and get_live_polymarket_trade_decision all produce trade-oriented decisions. The descriptions add context, but an agent could still easily pick the wrong tool for a given request.

Naming Consistency3/5

The tools are consistently snake_case and mostly readable, but the naming conventions are mixed: many tools use get_<noun>, while others start with verbs like backtest, detect, find, forecast. Minor irregularities such as pattern_search and the v2 suffix in get_trader_decision_v2 also reduce predictability.

Tool Count4/5

Fifteen tools is within a reasonable size, and the server covers a broad domain: pattern search, regime detection, backtesting, track records, private datasets, live Polymarket decisions, and documentation. The count is not excessive, but some tools are functionally redundant enough that the set could be tightened.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the main evidence workflow well: discovering patterns, analyzing analogs, backtesting strategies, checking track records, and producing trading decisions. Minor gaps remain around private dataset management and there is no separate low-level raw candle query tool, but most core user journeys are supported.

Resources

Need Help?