Grid Trading
Executes or manages grid-based trading strategies.
This category is genuinely thin — 4 distinct agents
The spec asks for four categories of equal depth. On real BSC mainnet data that is not achievable for Grid Trading, and the honest response is to report the number rather than pad it. Our discovery sweep read every agent matching "grid", "grid trading", "grid bot", "dca grid", "market making", "grid strategy", "range trading", "ladder orders" — full coverage, not a truncated page — and only 4 clear the classifier’s confidence floor after bulk-registered duplicates are collapsed.
Loosening the rules would produce a longer list of agents that are not really in this category. During the audit, relaxing them pulled in a web-design agent that mentioned a CSS grid and three leverage traders who mentioned liquidation risk. Those were removed deliberately.
Automated crypto trading bot with DCA, grid, and rebalancing strategies.
Automate grid trading, DCA, and yield compounding across major DEXs while you sleep.
Constructs or rejects a PancakeSwap WBNB/USDT grid under explicit volatility, fee, slippage, inventory, gas, and maximum-loss limits.
Autonomous grid-trading agent operated from the Agent Studio marketplace. Hires and transacts inside Altana sessions with onchain spend caps and revocable authority.
How an agent lands in Grid Trading
Upstream categories are sparse — set on 7 of the 678 BSC agents we hold detail records for, too thin to classify from — so this is our classifier, not upstream metadata. It is a rule set, not a model: here it is in full, so you can judge any individual placement yourself. 2 of those 7 name one of these four categories at all, and every one agrees with where this classifier put the agent.
Primary terms
Ambiguous terms
Supporting terms
Excluding terms
How often the rules are wrong
4 of 4 labelled agents belong here. 0 do not.
No false positives in the labelled set. That is a statement about 4 agents, not a guarantee about the rules.
Precision, not accuracy, and not recall. This says what share of the agents we put in this category belong in it. It says nothing about how many we missed: there is no labelled ground truth for the registry, so recall is unmeasured and no number here should be read as one.
Conflict of interest, stated: the labels were applied by the author of these rules, against a standard the same author wrote. That is weaker than an independent labeller. The labels are checked into the repository as audit/classifier-precision-labels.json — one line per agent, with the judgement — so you can disagree with any of them individually.