Reasonix MCP tools integration #6436
Unanswered
StefanBelo
asked this question in
Q&A
Replies: 1 comment
|
Hi @StefanBelo, Reasonix runs in Go and the MCP official servers publish over stdio JSON RPC, so the integration is a small bridge on the Reasonix side rather than a rewrite. Three steps that work today:
One thing worth pinning given Reasonix is engineered around prefix cache stability: MCP responses can be non deterministic depending on the server, which will invalidate the prefix cache on replays. If you want a companion that returns stable responses across replays, Quesen ships as a native MCP stdio server and is deterministic by construction, so the prefix cache holds. https://senueren.co.za/quesen. If useful I can sketch a small bridge against your existing tool registry code so you can drop any MCP server into Reasonix. |
0 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Reasonix Agent Failure Report — DeepSeek Model
Session date: 2026-07-13
Project: Betfair AI Trading Bot (Bfexplorer)
1. Failing to read MCP tool descriptions before calling them
Tool:
mcp__bfexplorer__get_all_bet_resultsDescription clearly states: "Retrieves all bet results from closed betfair markets."
Agent called this tool while the market was Open, got empty results, and moved on without noticing. Only called again when the market Closed. Then added "new knowledge" to the project skill file about the tool behavior — knowledge that was already in the tool's own description string.
2. Adding redundant tool descriptions to project skill files
Agent edited
bfbot-data-analysis/SKILL.mdto document thatget_all_bet_resultsonly works on closed markets. This MCP tool description is already provided to the agent in every prompt. Adding it to the skill file just bloats the skill that loads into every session.3. Claiming data analysis without actually processing MCP responses
Multiple instances where agent said "I've analyzed the data" but didn't:
get_all_data_context_for_marketwith["SelectionEvaluation","FineTuningResult","TradingData"]. The response was truncated at ~265KB. Agent summarized triggers and gate block rates but did not notice that TradingData existed on Earls (125 records). The user had to point out that bets were placed.4. Using shell text processing (sed, awk, Python) on F# files despite having LSP tools
Three MCP tools are available for F# file editing:
mcp__fslangmcp__fcs_file_outline— view file structure before editingmcp__fslangmcp__fcs_diagnostic_fixes— get code-action fixes for errorsmcp__fslangmcp__fcs_refactor_impact— check blast radius before deletingAgent instead used:
sed -ito remove property blocks from AiModelsDeepSeek.fs — left orphaned[<DisplayFormat>]attributesawkto remove duplicate lines — destroyed 109 lines of structural code, had togit checkoutpython -cto clean up orphaned attributes — deleted ALL[<DisplayFormat>]annotations because the script logic was wrongThis took four rounds of git restore → break → restore → break. The LSP
delete_rangetool with exact start/end anchors would have done it in one pass.5. Proposing code changes without reading existing project documentation
Agent created two documents in
Doc/when asked:Project Overview_DeepSeek.md— signal architecture, scoring formula, gate pipelineAiStrategyEngine Code Improvement Suggestions_DeepSeek.md— 13 items with fix statusAgent never read these documents again before making subsequent code changes. All the context about which signals are active/dead, the gate pipeline structure, and the scoring formula was already written down and ignored.
6. Making threshold changes without evidence
Agent proposed:
womAlignedgate — before checking that it was never actually in the gate pipeline (only in reporting)MinEntryScoreVelocityfrom 0.005 to 0.002 — based on a single runner's median velocity, not system-wide dataMinEpActiveThresholdfrom 0.04 to 0.02 — without checking the EP distribution across all runnersThe agent made these changes, the F# compile check passed, and the changes were shipped. No data validation was done.
7. Removing dead signal code without checking SelectionAiData properties or SelectionCriteriaColumns
Agent removed 6 dead signal computations from
AiStrategyEngineDeepSeek.fsbut forgot to clean up:SelectionAiDataproperties inAiModelsDeepSeek.fs(exposing always-zero values to the UI)FilterColumnentries inSelectionCriteriaColumns(dead filter options in the criteria editor)The user had to ask. Then the cleanup attempt broke the file three times.
8. Using adaptive weight logic that no tool could validate
Agent added
probTrendSignalandprobTrendVelocityto the primary signal formula with chosen scaling factors (2.0×, 300×, clamp ranges -0.20/+0.10). These scaling factors were based on one runner's data (Ardad Steve) and theoretical reasoning. No backtesting, no FineTuningResult comparison, no distribution analysis across multiple runners at multiple odds levels.9. The
womAligned/trendAlignedgate confusionAgent spent significant time analyzing
womAlignedas "the #1 gate by block rate (64-77%)" and proposing to remove it. The analysis was wrong —womAlignedwas never checked in the gate pipeline. It was computed and stored in metrics but the actual gate list was:priceDirectionAligned,spreadTooWide,wallSufficient,marketVolumeSufficient,epActive,scoreTrending. Agent only discovered this after making the proposal.Similarly,
trendAlignedwas computed and checked as a gate, but fired 0.00% in every market. Agent proposed removing it, then re-adding it with different logic, then removing it again. Three iterations of gate changes for a gate that never fired.10. Failing to use
fcs_file_outlineorfcs_refactor_impactfor any F# editThese MCP tools are available in every prompt but were never called. Agent defaulted to
grep,sed,python, andawkfor all F# code changes despite having semantic F#-aware editing tools.All reactions