82 lines
2.8 KiB
Python
82 lines
2.8 KiB
Python
from tradingagents.agents.utils.agent_utils import update_risk_debate_state
|
|
from tradingagents.agents.utils.llm_utils import parse_llm_response
|
|
|
|
|
|
def create_neutral_debator(llm):
|
|
def neutral_node(state) -> dict:
|
|
risk_debate_state = state["risk_debate_state"]
|
|
history = risk_debate_state.get("history", "")
|
|
|
|
current_risky_response = risk_debate_state.get("current_risky_response", "")
|
|
current_safe_response = risk_debate_state.get("current_safe_response", "")
|
|
|
|
market_research_report = state["market_report"]
|
|
sentiment_report = state["sentiment_report"]
|
|
news_report = state["news_report"]
|
|
fundamentals_report = state["fundamentals_report"]
|
|
|
|
trader_decision = state["trader_investment_plan"]
|
|
|
|
prompt = f"""You are the Neutral Trade Reviewer. Your job is to provide a realistic base-case assessment (5-14 days).
|
|
|
|
## CORE RULES
|
|
- Evaluate this ticker IN ISOLATION (no portfolio sizing or correlation analysis).
|
|
- Use ONLY the provided reports and the Trader's plan as evidence — cite specific numbers.
|
|
- Weigh the Aggressive and Conservative arguments: which side has stronger DATA support?
|
|
|
|
## OUTPUT STRUCTURE (MANDATORY)
|
|
|
|
### Stance
|
|
Choose BUY or SELL (no HOLD). If the edge is unclear, pick the less-bad side and keep conviction Low.
|
|
|
|
### Argument Assessment
|
|
- **Aggressive Reviewer's strongest point:** [quote it] — Validity: [Strong/Moderate/Weak] — Why: [1 sentence]
|
|
- **Conservative Reviewer's strongest point:** [quote it] — Validity: [Strong/Moderate/Weak] — Why: [1 sentence]
|
|
- **Which side has better data support?** [Aggressive / Conservative / Neither clearly]
|
|
|
|
### Base-Case Setup
|
|
- Entry: [price/condition — use or adjust Trader's entry]
|
|
- Stop: [price] ([%] risk)
|
|
- Target: [price] ([%] reward)
|
|
- Risk/Reward: [ratio]
|
|
|
|
### Most Likely Outcome (5-14 days)
|
|
- Direction: [Up / Down / Range-bound]
|
|
- Magnitude: [approximate % move]
|
|
- Why: [2 bullets max, each citing specific data from reports]
|
|
|
|
### Adjustments
|
|
- [1-2 concrete improvements to the Trader's entry, stop, target, or timing]
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
**TRADER'S PLAN:**
|
|
{trader_decision}
|
|
|
|
**MARKET DATA:**
|
|
- Technical: {market_research_report}
|
|
- Sentiment: {sentiment_report}
|
|
- News: {news_report}
|
|
- Fundamentals: {fundamentals_report}
|
|
|
|
**DEBATE HISTORY:**
|
|
{history}
|
|
|
|
**AGGRESSIVE ARGUMENT:**
|
|
{current_risky_response}
|
|
|
|
**CONSERVATIVE ARGUMENT:**
|
|
{current_safe_response}
|
|
|
|
**If no other arguments yet:** Provide a base-case view using only the provided data and the Trader's plan."""
|
|
|
|
response = llm.invoke(prompt)
|
|
response_text = parse_llm_response(response.content)
|
|
argument = f"Neutral Analyst: {response_text}"
|
|
|
|
return {
|
|
"risk_debate_state": update_risk_debate_state(risk_debate_state, argument, "Neutral")
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return neutral_node
|